By 2001, the facility was allowed to accept all types of class A  waste. Since 1999 LLRW Disposal Availability and Federal Oversight Have Changed

We identified a number of important changes that have occurred since our  1999 report that have had or might have significant effects on future  disposal availability for these wastes and federal oversight of LLRW  management by the states. The remaining changes affect federal agency guidance and oversight of  LLRW management by the states. They added that while storage is presently  safe, they are concerned about the future safety and security of the  increasing volumes of LLRW stored by thousands of licensees who have  decided not to pay high disposal fees today, and who might not have  disposal options for class B and C wastes in the future. Annual LLRW Disposal Volumes Have Increased, but Future Volumes Are Uncertain

Annual LLRW disposal volumes have increased significantly in recent  years, primarily the result of cleaning up of DOE sites and  decommissioning nuclear power plants. We chose to rely on disposal  volume data from the three commercial disposal facility operators because  the MIMS database does not include DOE waste volumes sent to  commercial disposal, it is not as up to date, and it has other deficiencies. There are several reasons cited for this  difficulty: records from “legacy” sites—former nuclear weapons  production sites that DOE is cleaning up—have not proven to be reliable;  the decay rate of known buried radioactive wastes have often been higher  than expected so wastes that were expected to need disposal as LLRW can  instead be legally classified as radioactive waste mixed with  nonradioactive but hazardous wastes and sent to less expensive disposal  facilities; contractors have become more innovative and skilled in sorting  and segregating hazardous and mixed wastes from LLRW so that a higher  percentage of wastes can be disposed of as hazardous or mixed wastes  rather than LLRW; and some debris and material from site cleanup  projected to be LLRW has no appreciable radioactivity when generated  and can therefore be disposed in sanitary landfills or other non-LLRW  disposal facilities. No Other Widespread Effects Detected of Shortfall in LLRW Disposal Availability

Notwithstanding the cost of minimizing and storing LLRW, we did not  detect widespread national impacts on LLRW generators that have  resulted or might result from any disposal shortfalls. However, DOE and NRC have reduced their  oversight of LLRW management by the states. This option to maintain  the status quo, as discussed in our 1999 report, may no longer be tenable if  there are no assured safe, reliable, and cost-effective disposal options put  forward to address a potential shortfall in disposal availability for class B  and C wastes after mid-2008. Establishing federal  responsibility for disposal of at least the class B and C wastes would be  similar to federal responsibilities for greater-than-class C waste,  transuranic, and high-level waste. GAO Comment

1. As long as NRC places no time limits  on LLRW storage and provides assurance that it is safe and secure, any  shortfalls in disposal capacity would be manageable in the short-term. 2. 3. 4.
Why GAO Did This Study

Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) management concerns persist despite enactment of the LLRW Policy Act of 1980, as amended, which made states responsible for providing for disposal of most LLRW. It also enumerated guidance and oversight responsibilities for DOE and NRC. When GAO last reported on LLRW disposal, in 1999, the only existing facility accepting the more highly radioactive types of LLRW (known as class B and C waste) from most states was expected to be full within 10 years. In this context, GAO examined (1) changes in LLRW conditions since 1999, (2) recent annual LLRW disposal volumes and potential future volumes, (3) any current or anticipated shortfalls in disposal availability, and (4) potential effects of any such shortfall.

What GAO Found

GAO identified several changes in LLRW disposal availability and federal agency oversight since its 1999 report that have had or might have significant impacts on LLRW management by the states. For example, while one disposal facility plans to close to most states and new options are evolving that may counteract this shortfall, federal guidance and oversight of LLRW management has virtually ended. Annual LLRW disposal volumes increased 200 percent between 1999 and 2003, primarily due to LLRW shipped to commercial disposal by DOE. GAO identified this increase using data from the three commercial disposal facility operators because GAO determined that data from the national LLRW database, maintained by DOE to assist the LLRW community in managing LLRW, were unreliable. The uncertain timing and volume of future waste shipments from DOE and nuclear utilities make it difficult to forecast disposal needs for all classes of LLRW. At current LLRW disposal volumes, disposal availability appears adequate until at least mid-2008 for class B and C wastes. There are no expected shortfalls in disposal availability for class A waste. If disposal conditions do not change, however, most states will not have a place to dispose of their class B and C wastes after 2008. Nevertheless, any disposal shortfall that might arise is unlikely to pose an immediate problem because generators can minimize, process, and safely store waste. While these approaches are costly, GAO did not detect other immediate widespread effects. NRC places no limit on stored waste and presently does not centrally track it. However, as LLRW storage volume and duration increase in the absence of reliable and cost-effective disposal options, so might the safety and security risks.