a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 

Senate

June 2004 LOW-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE 

WASTE

Disposal Availability 

Adequate in the Short 

Term, but Oversight 

Needed to Identify 

Any Future Shortfalls

GAO-04-604
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-604.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robin Nazzaro, 

(202) 512-3851, Nazzaror@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-604, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate 

June 2004

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Disposal Availability Adequate in the 

Short Term, but Oversight Needed to 

Identify Any Future Shortfalls 

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. 

Lowering Radioactive Waste into a Concrete Barrier at a Commercial Disposal Facility 

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. 

The Congress may wish to consider 

directing NRC to report if LLRW 

disposal and storage conditions 

change enough to warrant 

congressional intervention. GAO 

also recommends that DOE halt 

dissemination of its on-line LLRW 

database as long as it has internal 

control weaknesses and other 

shortcomings. NRC disagreed that 

it was the most appropriate entity 

to prepare this report. DOE 

disagreed that it should halt 

dissemination of LLRW information 

despite known problems with its 

database. GAO remains firm in its 

suggestion to the Congress and in 

its agency recommendation. 
Page i GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 7

Since 1999 LLRW Disposal Availability and Federal Oversight Have 

Changed 10

Annual LLRW Disposal Volumes Have Increased, but Future 

Volumes Are Uncertain 13

LLRW Disposal Availability Appears Adequate Until Mid-2008 18

Any LLRW Disposal Shortfall After Mid-2008 Unlikely to Pose 

Immediate Problem 19

Conclusions 24

Recommendations for Executive Action 24

Matters for Congressional Consideration 24

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Overview of Existing Commercial LLRW Disposal 

Facilities 27 

Barnwell Disposal Facility 28

Envirocare Disposal Facility 31

Richland Disposal Facility 35

Appendix II LLRW Legislative Options 40 

Appendix III Scope and Methodology 44 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Energy 46 

GAO Comment 48

Appendix V Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 49 

GAO Comments 52

Figures 

Figure 1: Conceptual Flow Diagram of Radioactive Sources from 

Production to Disposal 8

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Figure 2: State LLRW Compacts and Unaffiliated States 10

Figure 3: Location of Three Commercial LLRW Disposal Facilities 27

Figure 4: Delivery of a Large Reactor Vessel to the LLRW Trench at 

the Barnwell Disposal Facility 31

Figure 5: Rail Unloading Facility Associated with Class A Bulk 

Waste Disposal at the Envirocare Disposal Facility 35

Figure 6: LLRW Disposal Trench at the Richland Disposal Facility 39

Abbreviations 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

DOE Department of Energy 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

LLRW Low-level radioactive waste 

MIMS Manifest Information Management System 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

June 9, 2004 

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The management of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) by the states has 

continued to be a concern despite two-decade-old federal legislation 

addressing the need for disposal. Under the LLRW Policy Act of 1980, as 

amended (the Act), each state is responsible for providing for disposal of 

LLRW generated within the state, either by itself or in cooperation with 

other states, with the exception of waste produced by the Department of 

Energy (DOE) and the nuclear propulsion component of the Department 

of the Navy. While not responsible for this federal waste, an LLRW 

disposal facility is allowed to accept it. LLRW is an inevitable byproduct of 

nuclear power generation and of government, industrial, academic, and 

medical uses of radioactive materials. LLRW includes items such as rags, 

paper, liquid, glass, metal components, resins, filters, and protective 

clothing that have been exposed to radioactivity or contaminated with 

radioactive material. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has 

divided the wastes covered by the Act into categories of increasing levels 

of hazard exposure, beginning with Class A, followed by B and C.1

The aim of the Act was to provide for more LLRW disposal capacity on a 

regional basis and to more equitably distribute responsibility for the 

management of LLRW among the states. As an incentive for states to 

manage waste on a regional basis, the Congress consented to the 

formation of interstate agreements, known as compacts, and granted 

compact member states the authority to exclude LLRW from other 

compacts or unaffiliated states.2

 DOE and NRC were given responsibilities 

 1

Class A, B and C wastes for near surface disposal are defined in 10 C.F.R. § 61.55. DOE is 

responsible for the disposal of a fourth category of LLRW, known as greater-than-class C 

waste, and the waste owned and generated by the department. 

2

Generators of LLRW located in compact or unaffiliated states that do not have their own 

disposal facility can contract with a disposal facility in another compact if this compact 

allows them to do so. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

to help guide and oversee implementation of the Act. DOE was to provide 

both financial and technical assistance to states and interstate compacts to 

develop disposal facilities, in addition to reporting annually to the 

Congress on management of LLRW by the states. Technical assistance was 

to include, among other things, providing guidance on waste disposal site 

selection, waste reduction methods, and transportation practices, as well 

as establishing a computerized database to assist the states and DOE in 

monitoring the management of LLRW. NRC’s enumerated tasks included 

preparing licensing standards for disposal facilities, and granting 

individual waste generators emergency access to a regional or other 

nonfederal disposal facility if necessary to eliminate any immediate and 

serious threat to the public health and safety or for the common defense 

and security. In addition to these responsibilities, NRC is responsible 

under the Atomic Energy Act for licensing, among other things, the 

possession and disposal of radioactive materials, and for inspecting 

licensees to ensure safe and secure use of these materials. Under the 

Atomic Energy Act, NRC can enter into agreements with states, known as 

Agreement States, to discontinue its regulatory responsibilities with 

respect to byproduct, source, and certain quantities of special nuclear 

materials. These responsibilities relinquished to states include licensing 

LLRW disposal facilities.3

There are currently three licensed commercially operated LLRW disposal 

facilities. Each of these disposal facilities operates under different access 

and licensing restrictions. The commercial facility near Barnwell, South 

Carolina, is allowed to accept all classes of LLRW from the three member 

states of the Atlantic Compact, as well as waste from 36 other states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.4

 The commercial facility near 

Richland, Washington, is allowed to accept all classes of LLRW, but only 

from the 11 member states of the Northwest and Rocky Mountain 

Compacts. And, the commercial facility operated by Envirocare of Utah, 

which, like the Richland facility, is located in the Northwest Compact, is 

allowed to accept class A waste from all states except those in the 

Northwest Compact. (See app. I for an overview of existing commercial 

LLRW disposal facilities.) 

 3

There are currently 33 Agreement States including all three states in which commercial 

LLRW disposal facilities are located. 

4

Under the Act, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have the same responsibilities as 

the states. 
Page 3 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

When we last reported on LLRW disposal in 1999, we found that states 

were not developing new disposal facilities and that within 10 years the 

only facility available to waste generators in most states for their class B 

and C wastes could be full.5

 Our report noted that this situation raised 

questions about the willingness of the states, under authorities granted to 

them in the Act, to develop new facilities. Our report also assessed options 

that the Congress could take to deal with a disposal shortfall if there were 

no change in conditions. (See app. II for a discussion of legislative 

options.) In this context, you asked us to report on (1) any changes in 

LLRW conditions since our 1999 report, (2) recent LLRW annual disposal 

volumes and potential future volumes, (3) any current or anticipated 

shortfalls in LLRW disposal availability, and (4) potential effects of any 

such shortfall. 

To conduct our work, we interviewed regulators and disposal operators in 

the states that have or are proposing LLRW disposal facilities. We also 

spoke with representatives from DOE, NRC, a nuclear power association, 

environmental groups, LLRW generators, Department of Defense 

executive agent for LLRW, and an independent nonprofit association of 

LLRW stakeholders. We obtained disposal volume data directly from the 

three commercial facility operators and compared these data with 

information contained in DOE’s online national LLRW database. This 

comparison and other analyses were used to assess the usefulness and 

reliability of this database in estimating disposal volumes. We also 

reviewed applicable laws and regulations, including the Atomic Energy 

Act, as amended, and the LLRW Policy Act, as amended. Finally, to 

identify any potential effects of a disposal shortfall, we sought information 

from groups likely to know about such effects: state and compact officials, 

and those engaged in the practice, science, or technology of radiation 

safety. Specifically, we surveyed officials from all compacts and 

unaffiliated states, and sent a separate e-mail questionnaire to the 

approximately 2,000 subscribers of the Radsafe Listserv for radiation 

safety officers. We also placed a notice in the Health Physics Society 

newsletter, which has a circulation of about 6,000, and asked for 

volunteers to answer the same questions that we had sent to the Radsafe 

Listserv subscribers. Our work was conducted in conformance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards between August 2003 

 5

U.S. General Accounting Office, Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: States Are Not Developing 

Disposal Facilities, GAO/RCED-99-238 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 1999). 
Page 4 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

and May 2004. (See app. III for further information on the scope and 

methodology of our review.) 

Since our September 1999 report, we identified several changes that have 

had or might have significant effects on LLRW disposal availability and 

federal oversight. The changes that might have implications for long-term 

disposal availability include South Carolina’s decision to close the 

Barnwell disposal facility to noncompact states by mid-2008, issuance of a 

license to Envirocare to accept class B and C wastes pending approval by 

the Utah legislature and governor, Texas legislation to allow the licensing 

of a new disposal facility in that state, and a federal appellate court ruling 

against Nebraska for reneging on its compact obligations to build a new 

disposal facility, which might prompt the state to reconsider development 

of a facility. Regarding changes in federal agency guidance and oversight 

of LLRW management by the states, DOE no longer has specific 

appropriated funds to support a National Low Level Waste Management 

Program, and the requirement that DOE report to the Congress on LLRW 

conditions terminated effective May 2000. Further, in the late 1990s, NRC 

decreased its direct involvement in LLRW management because no new 

disposal sites were being developed that would involve NRC licensing or 

the provision of technical assistance to state agencies that would license 

such a facility. 

Annual LLRW disposal volumes have increased in recent years; however, 

the timing and level of future volumes needing disposal are uncertain. 

According to data provided by the three commercial LLRW disposal 

facility operators, disposal volumes grew to about 12 million cubic feet in 

2003, an increase of 200 percent over 1999. Class A waste accounted for 99 

percent of the disposal volume. The recent increases in disposal volumes 

are attributed to shipments of class A waste associated most with cleaning 

up DOE sites and some decommissioning waste from nuclear power 

plants; about 78 percent of the class A waste in 2003 came from DOE. We 

relied on data from these operators because the online national LLRW 

database maintained by the department lacked data on DOE waste 

shipped to commercial disposal facilities, it was not up to date, and it had 

other deficiencies. For example, some of the deficiencies in the database 

included discrepancies between amounts of waste disposal operators 

claimed they disposed and that which DOE recorded as accepted, and 

erroneous attribution of waste generation to states from which it did not 

originate. Notwithstanding problems obtaining complete and reliable 

LLRW data, uncertainties will remain regarding the timing and volume of 

Results in Brief 
Page 5 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

LLRW needing disposal in the future, which will largely depend on the 

disposal decisions made by DOE and nuclear utility companies. 

There appears to be enough disposal availability to serve the nation’s 

needs at least until mid-2008, when generators in many states might lose 

disposal access for their class B and C wastes. Disposal availability for 

class A waste is not a problem in the short or longer term. According to 

Envirocare, which accepted 99 percent of the nation’s class A waste in 

2003, the disposal facility can take 20 years or more of such waste under 

its current license. Capacity at the Barnwell and Richland facilities, which 

are licensed to accept all three classes of LLRW, is more than sufficient to 

serve the needs of the states within the compacts served by these 

facilities. However, there are an additional 36 states that currently rely on 

Barnwell as their only disposal option for their class B and C wastes. 

While there appears to be available space at Barnwell to meet their 

anticipated disposal needs in the short term, South Carolina has enacted 

legislation to terminate noncompact states’ access to this facility after mid2008. Unless South Carolina changes its position, or additional disposal 

capacity is made available, there will not be disposal options for class B 

and C wastes generated within these states in the longer term. 

If after 2008, there are no new disposal options for class B and C wastes, 

licensed users of radioactive materials can continue to minimize waste 

generation, process waste into safer forms, and store waste pending the 

development of additional disposal options. While NRC prefers the 

disposal of LLRW, on-site storage is allowed as long as the waste remains 

safe and secure. Since September 11, 2001, both the public’s concern with 

and its perception of risk associated with radioactive release, including 

that from stored LLRW, have increased. However, should an immediate 

and serious threat exist from any specific location of stored waste, NRC 

has the authority under the Act to override any compact restrictions and 

allow shipment of the waste to a regional or other nonfederal disposal 

facility under narrowly defined conditions. While use of waste 

minimization techniques and storage can alleviate the need for disposal 

availability, they can be costly. For example, one university recently built a 

$12 million combined hazardous and radioactive waste management 

facility of which two-thirds is devoted to the processing and temporary 

storage of class A waste. Apart from the cost of managing LLRW, the 

survey we conducted of state and compact officials and the responses to 

questions we sent to two other LLRW stakeholder groups did not uncover 

any widespread national impacts if LLRW generators were to face limited 

or no disposal options in the short term. For example, given the 

opportunity to inform us of any concerns regarding the lack of a disposal 
Page 6 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

option for LLRW, only 14 of the 2,000 radiation safety officers surveyed 

responded, and only 1 of these respondents raised a concern. In addition, a 

2001 National Research Council report concluded that it would take 10 to 

20 years before the lack of an LLRW disposal option might adversely 

impact biomedical research or clinical practice. 

Although no shortfall in disposal availability appears imminent, 

uncertainties about future access to disposal facilities remain, such as the 

development of new disposal options and the increased safety and 

security risks associated with longer-term storage of LLRW. Therefore, 

continued federal oversight of disposal availability and the conditions of 

stored waste is warranted. However, as a result of decreased federal 

oversight and a national LLRW database with known shortcomings, there 

is no central collection of information to monitor this situation. Given that 

NRC is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the use, storage, and 

disposal of radioactive materials, and DOE’s changed role in LLRW 

management, we believe that NRC is now the most appropriate agency to 

report to the Congress on LLRW conditions. Recognizing the deficiencies 

in the national LLRW database, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Energy halt dissemination of information from it as long as these 

deficiencies persist. Considering the need for federal oversight, the 

Congress may wish to direct NRC to report to it if LLRW disposal and 

storage conditions should change enough to warrant consideration of new 

legislation to ensure safe, reliable, and cost-effective disposal availability. 

DOE and NRC commented that we provided an accurate summary of 

current LLRW disposal conditions and potential issues that may be 

encountered in the future. DOE disagreed with our recommendation 

pertaining to its national online LLRW database. However, in doing so, 

DOE did not address our concerns about internal control weaknesses and 

other shortcomings in the database. We stand by our recommendation to 

DOE because we believe that it is inappropriate to disseminate 

information that is known to be incomplete and unreliable. NRC disagreed 

with our suggestion that the Congress consider directing it to gather 

information and to report on LLRW disposal and storage conditions. In 

commenting on our draft report, NRC provided information on data 

gathering actions already in place or planned that would adequately 

ensure the safety and security of radioactive materials, including the 

storage of LLRW as an alternative to its disposal. Given these actions and 

the concerns of NRC with the regulatory cost of complying with any new 

data gathering requirements, such as additional rulemaking, we eliminated 

our suggested congressional directive in this regard. However, we 

maintain that NRC is now the most appropriate agency to report to the 
Page 7 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Congress if LLRW disposal and storage conditions should change enough 

to warrant congressional intervention. We incorporated technical changes 

in this report where appropriate based on detailed comments provided by 

the agencies. 

The disposal of LLRW is only the end of the radioactive material life cycle 

that spans its production, use, processing, interim storage, and disposal. In 

general the cycle starts with procurement of the radioisotopes that have 

medical, industrial, agricultural, and research applications. The isotopes 

come in either sealed or unsealed sources. While a metal container shields 

a sealed source, unsealed sources remain accessible in a glass vial or other 

type of container. Common uses of this radioactive material are in 

radiotherapy, radiography, smoke detectors, irradiation and sterilization of 

food and materials, gauging, and illumination of emergency exit signs. In 

the course of working with these materials, other material, such as 

protective clothing and gloves, pipes, filters, and concrete that come in 

contact with them will become contaminated. The nuclear utility industry 

generates the bulk of this LLRW through the normal operation and 

maintenance of nuclear power plants, and when these plants are 

decommissioned. Once these materials have served their purpose, they are 

recycled or become LLRW. LLRW can be processed by those licensed to 

use these materials or by specialized companies to reduce the volume and 

sometimes the radioactivity level of the waste before it is either put into a 

licensed interim storage or a disposal facility. After a period of storage, 

some LLRW can decay to the point that it is safe for disposal in regulated 

landfill sites. During the life cycle, there will also be some loss of 

radioactive materials. Figure 1 diagrams the life-cycle process for 

radioactive materials. 

Background 
Page 8 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Figure 1: Conceptual Flow Diagram of Radioactive Sources from Production to 

Disposal 

Back in the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) began to 

encourage the development of commercial LLRW disposal facilities, as a 

substitute for ocean disposal, to accommodate the increased volume of 

commercial waste that was being generated. Six such disposal facilities 

were licensed, two of which, the facility in Richland, Washington, licensed 

in 1965, and in Barnwell, South Carolina, licensed in 1971, remain open 

today to accept class A, B and C wastes.6

 Each of these facilities is located 

within the boundaries of or adjacent to a much larger site owned by DOE. 

The third facility, operated by Envirocare of Utah, is about 80 miles west 

of Salt Lake City. The state initially licensed the Envirocare facility in 1988 

to accept naturally occurring radioactive waste. In 1991, Utah amended the 

license to permit the disposal of some LLRW and the Northwest Compact 

 6

Under the auspices of the AEC, four other commercial disposal facilities were licensed in 

the 1960s, including facilities in Nevada, Kentucky, New York, and Illinois. 
Page 9 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

agreed to allow Envirocare to accept these wastes from noncompact 

states. By 2001, the facility was allowed to accept all types of class A 

waste. 

Despite estimates by a nuclear industry association that expenditures may 

now have reached approximately $1 billion on various facility 

development efforts, no new commercial LLRW disposal facility has been 

developed since passage of the Act, except for the Envirocare facility, 

which was not developed at the instigation of the compact in which it 

exists. In our 1999 report, we found that the impetus to develop new 

disposal facilities was dampened by a combination of factors that included 

significant decreases in LLRW generation, available capacity at the three 

existing facilities to meet national disposal needs, and rising costs of 

developing disposal facilities. Development costs were a concern because 

these costs and operating costs would need to be covered by the disposal 

fees placed on uncertain and perhaps limited LLRW generated within a 

compact. Developing new LLRW disposal facilities also encountered 

public and political resistance in states designated to host these facilities. 

There are presently 10 compacts comprised of 43 states; the Appalachian, 

Atlantic, Central, Central Midwest, Northwest, Midwest, Rocky Mountain, 

Southeast, Southwestern, and Texas compacts. There are also 7 

unaffiliated states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. A 

graphic of the state LLRW compacts and unaffiliated states is provided in 

figure 2. 
Page 10 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Figure 2: State LLRW Compacts and Unaffiliated States 

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 following changes that might have 

implications for long-term disposal availability include: 

• In 2001, South Carolina legislation restricted the use of the Barnwell 

disposal facility to only generators in the three-member Atlantic compact 

after mid-2008. Presently, this facility is the only disposal option for the 

class B and C wastes generated in 36 other states and the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. Approaching the threshold of capacity at 

Barnwell is not a new concern. In the past, the state legislature has 

changed its position on restricting access to this facility, both closing and 

reopening the facility to noncompact member states over the years. 

Since 1999 LLRW 

Disposal Availability 

and Federal Oversight 

Have Changed 
Page 11 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

• In 2001, Envirocare received a license from the state regulatory authority 

to accept class B and C wastes pending approval by the Utah legislature 

and governor. Currently, the state has imposed a moratorium on approving 

the use of this license until February 2005, after a review of the 

recommendations of a hazardous waste regulation and policy task force. 

The legislative task force was set up to conduct a two-year study of how 

facilities in Utah that accept radioactive waste or radioactive materials for 

processing or reprocessing compare to other facilities in terms of 

competitive fees and tax structure. The task force is expected to issue its 

final report by November 2004. Granting approval for Envirocare to use its 

class B and C wastes license to accept these wastes nationally might 

eliminate any shortfall in disposal availability for class B and C wastes 

resulting from restricted access to the Barnwell disposal facility. 

• In 2003, Texas legislation designated a geographic area in the state as 

acceptable for a new LLRW disposal facility, and the state regulator 

developed a license application process for this facility. If a facility license 

is granted, the facility operator will be allowed to accept all classes of 

LLRW, as well as DOE site cleanup wastes. It has taken Texas two decades 

to garner the political support to move forward with developing a new 

disposal facility that would be privately operated instead of through a 

public entity. Access, however, may be granted only to generators in 

selected states outside of the Texas Compact. On the other hand, if access 

is granted nationally, the Texas disposal facility might eliminate any 

shortfall in disposal availability for class B and C wastes resulting from 

restricting access to the Barnwell disposal facility. 

• In 2004, a federal appellate court ruling has renewed discussions in 

Nebraska about building a disposal facility for the 5-member state Central 

Compact. The Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a federal 

district court decision that Nebraska, as a designated host state, is liable 

for $151 million in damages for reneging on its obligations to the Central 

Compact to build a disposal facility by denying a license application for 

reasons not related to the merits of the application.7

 While Nebraska may 

appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the appeals court decision 

might encourage Nebraska to reconsider building a disposal facility and 

affect the decisions of other states that have prior obligations to build new 

disposal facilities for their respective compacts.8

 7

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska, 226 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (D. Neb. 2002), aff’d, 358 F.3d 

528 (8th Cir. 2004). 

8

In addition to the Nebraska litigation, the states of California and North Carolina are also 

in litigation over the development of new disposal facilities. 
Page 12 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The remaining changes affect federal agency guidance and oversight of 

LLRW management by the states. 

• In 2001, DOE significantly diminished its involvement in guiding and 

overseeing LLRW management by the states. DOE’s reporting requirement 

on LLRW management, as originally required by the Act,9

 terminated 

effective May 2000.10 The department’s last report to the Congress covered 

the 1998 LLRW management situation. DOE’s technical assistance 

activities under the Act have also essentially ended after a period of 

shifting emphasis and decline. According to a DOE Inspector General’s 

report, starting in 1996, the department shifted its technical assistance to 

states and compact regions from developing LLRW disposal facilities to 

providing assistance on, among other things, tracking and storing waste.11

The report found that the department’s shift in technical assistance was a 

reaction to the states’ inability to overcome barriers to disposal site 

selection. The funding level for the program in the late 1990s was about $4 

million annually. In fiscal year 2000, the Congress did not appropriate 

funds for DOE’s National Low-Level Waste Management Program, with the 

exception of about $600,000 to maintain the online LLRW national 

database, known as the Manifest Information Management System 

(MIMS), that was a component of this program. Since then, DOE has not 

received appropriated funds specifically to support a National Low-Level 

Waste Management Program.12 Instead, according to DOE, it has requested 

and has been appropriated funds each fiscal year to purchase and maintain 

the MIMS database, although not as an identifiable line item in its budget. 

• Since the late 1990s, NRC has decreased its direct involvement in LLRW 

management by the states because no new disposal sites were being 

developed and Agreement States have taken on more of these 

responsibilities. However, the perceived security risks of stored LLRW 

have heightened since 2001 because of the potential to use some of this 

material in radioactive dispersal devices, sometimes known as “dirty 

bombs.” While NRC has set no time limits on the storage of LLRW, as long 

 9

This requirement was originally codified at 42 U.S.C. §2021(g). 

10See, Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003 (1995), as amended. See note under 31 U.S.C.A. § 1113. 

11Office of Inspector General. National Low-Level Waste Management Program, DOE/IG0462 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Office of 

Audit Services, February 2000). 

1242 U.S.C. § 2021g(a) provides that DOE shall provide assistance to carry out the Act “to 

the extent provided in appropriations acts.” 
Page 13 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

as it is safe, it prefers disposal. Agency officials told us that 

implementation of the Act has not resulted in reliable and cost effective 

disposal options for generators. 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. NRC is in the 

process of conducting vulnerability studies of both reactor and radioactive 

materials licensees, including those with LLRW storage and disposal. 

According to agency officials, the result of these assessments will include 

recommendations for graded approaches to security enforcement based 

on the overall risk of particular facilities. In addition, NRC has surveyed 

the states to determine if new regulations should be developed for assured 

isolation facilities. The Commission decided to defer further rulemaking in 

this area and to review the need for future action annually, including the 

potential need for rulemaking and or regulatory guidance for long-term 

storage of LLRW. The Commission also directed NRC staff to participate, 

as resources allow, in the Conference of Radiation Control Program 

Directors’ development of a suggested State regulation for control of 

radiation in assured isolation facilities. Notwithstanding these actions, 

NRC officials told us that the agency does not centrally track disposal 

availability or the volume and duration of stored LLRW. 

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. 

Future disposal volumes remain uncertain and will depend largely on 

waste disposal decisions by DOE and nuclear utility companies. 

Since the beginning of 1999, disposal volumes have steadily increased to 

over 12 million cubic feet in 2003, an increase of over 200 percent. Class A 

waste accounted for 99 percent of this volume. Data from disposal facility 

operators indicate that annual disposal volumes for class A waste tripled, 

going from about 4 million cubic feet in 1999 to nearly 12 million cubic feet 

by 2003. The class A waste disposed of at Envirocare represented 99 

percent of the total volume in 2003, and about 78 percent of this waste 

came from DOE. According to the disposal facility operator, DOE has 

increased its shipment of waste to the facility from initially about 36,000 

Annual LLRW 

Disposal Volumes 

Have Increased, but 

Future Volumes Are 

Uncertain 

LLRW Disposal Volumes 

Increased Significantly 

since 1999 
Page 14 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

cubic feet in 1994 (6.6 percent of the class A waste disposed) to almost 9.3 

million cubic feet in 2003 (77.8 percent of the class A waste disposed). In 

contrast, disposal volumes of class B waste declined 47 percent, from 

about 23,500 cubic feet in 1999, to about 12,400 cubic feet in 2003. Class C 

waste disposal volumes were more volatile, changing as much as 107 

percent in a single year. The total annual disposal volume of class C waste 

alternately rose and fell between 1999 and 2003, with the annual total 

reaching over 20,000 cubic feet in 1999, falling as low as about 11,000 

cubic feet in 2002, then rising over 23,000 cubic feet in 2003. Of the total 

class B and C wastes disposed of in 2003, 99 percent went to Barnwell. 

Overall annual changes in disposal volume were driven by shipments of 

class A wastes, which are generated primarily by cleanup of DOE sites. 

Class B and C waste disposal volumes were affected by commercial 

nuclear power plant decommissioning activities, but these classes of waste 

represented slightly less than 0.5 percent of total volume of disposed 

waste between 1999 and 2003. 

We chose not to use MIMS, which DOE maintains and operates for the 

LLRW community and public, to determine recent disposal volumes or to 

use other information in this database to analyze sources of LLRW by 

state, compact, and generator type because of shortcomings in its 

usefulness and reliability. Instead, we relied on data supplied to us by the 

three commercial disposal operators for our analysis because it includes 

DOE waste volumes sent for commercial disposal, it is more up to date, 

and because it is the primary source data input into the national LLRW 

database. 

Even though DOE ships large quantities of LLRW to a commercial disposal 

facility, this useful information is not captured in MIMS. Other types of 

useful information, such as storage of waste and volume of waste 

reduction, are also not collected in this database.13 The consensus among 

the compact and unaffiliated state officials we surveyed was that they 

could more effectively regulate and monitor LLRW in their compacts and 

states if MIMS offered more comprehensive and reliable data. Despite 

these shortcomings, these officials have sometimes used MIMS data as a 

convenient source of information for public, media, and stakeholder 

 13This information was not included, but would have been useful in preparing DOE’s annual 

reports to the Congress on LLRW management by the states. (The reporting requirement 

was eliminated, effective May 2000, by Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003, as amended.) 

Concerns about 

Usefulness and Reliability 

of National LLRW 

Database 
Page 15 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

inquiries, as a means of monitoring LLRW within their compact or region, 

and as an external check on the LLRW interstate shipment data reported 

to compact and state regulators by the disposal operators. 

We also identified shortcomings in the reliability of the MIMS database. 

We identified inconsistencies between what the disposal facility operators 

claimed had been disposed of at their facilities and what was recorded in 

this database. For example, the volumes of LLRW reported to us by 

Envirocare for 1999 to 2003 totaled 10.4 million cubic feet, compared to 

the 15.7 million cubic feet that was reported in MIMS.14 There were also 

problems with other kinds of data in MIMS. States and compacts have 

identified discrepancies that undermine the data’s usefulness, particularly 

regarding the state-specific information on the origins of waste. For 

example, Tennessee, which is the base of operations for companies that 

transport and process the waste from generators in other states prior to 

disposal, reports that it is erroneously recorded in MIMS as the state of 

origin of this waste. 

The data DOE puts into MIMS comes from the three commercial LLRW 

disposal facility operators in electronic format. DOE pays each operator 

varying amounts of money to extract data from the records accompanying 

shipments of LLRW that provide information on the volume, radioactivity 

level, source, and other information about the waste. These records are 

called manifests and NRC requires their use to track shipment of 

radioactive materials. The disposal operator then transmits some of this 

information to DOE for entry into MIMS. Each disposal facility operator is 

responsible for ensuring the validity of these data, but DOE’s contracts 

with these operators leave to them what steps, if any, should be taken to 

validate the data. DOE takes no responsibility for verifying the accuracy of 

the data supplied by the disposal facility operators. Furthermore, while 

DOE takes some steps to ensure that it accurately uploads operatorsupplied data into MIMS, it does not perform other systematic quality 

checks on the data, such as “reasonableness” checks, cross tabulations, or 

exceptions reports. As a result, we determined that the lack of consistent 

and comprehensive internal controls, such as controls over information 

processing, undermine our confidence in the data output in MIMS for 

 14We excluded the LLRW shipped to Envirocare by DOE in this comparison because the 

MIMS database does not record any DOE waste disposed of at commercial facilities. 
Page 16 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

several types of information, including sources of waste coming from 

states, compacts, and generator types.15

Notwithstanding problems obtaining reliable and complete LLRW disposal 

data, uncertainties remain concerning the timing and volume of LLRW 

needing disposal in the future, which largely will depend on the disposal 

decisions made by nuclear utility companies and DOE, as well as on 

possible changes in regulatory standards for what constitutes LLRW. The 

pace of nuclear power plant decommissioning has been slower than 

expected. Nuclear utility industry officials and federal officials told us that 

beyond the few nuclear power plants now being decommissioned, only a 

small number of plants are expected to be decommissioned in the next 20 

years or more. The economics of electricity generation make it desirable 

for most utilities to keep their existing nuclear power plants running, in 

some cases even making investments to upgrade and extend the operating 

life of the reactors. Moreover, the nuclear power industry has aggressively 

minimized the amount of LLRW it produces, both in absolute volume and 

in decreasing the amount of the more radioactive class B and C wastes by, 

for example, changing some kinds of filters more often before 

radioactivity concentrates at higher levels. 

Recent DOE experiences cleaning up its sites underscore how difficult 

making useful projections can be. Officials at DOE told us that such 

projections for sites now being cleaned up have not proven very accurate, 

and have tended to significantly overestimate waste volumes that would 

require disposal as LLRW. 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 

 15Controls over information processing that DOE could require in its contracts with 

disposal facility operators would include, for example, edit checks of data entered, 

accounting for transactions in numerical sequences, comparing file totals with control 

accounts, and controlling access to data, files, and programs. 

Uncertainties Surround 

Projecting Future LLRW 

Disposal Volumes 
Page 17 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

projected to be LLRW has no appreciable radioactivity when generated 

and can therefore be disposed in sanitary landfills or other non-LLRW 

disposal facilities. Moreover, there are some indications that the volume of 

DOE cleanup waste likely to be sent to commercial LLRW disposal 

facilities is currently at or near a peak and will soon rapidly decline as 

cleanup at some DOE sites winds down and as cleanup activity shifts to 

other DOE sites that have considerable on-site disposal capacity. As a 

result, DOE officials expect the use of commercial LLRW disposal 

facilities to start declining after 2006 and to stay comparatively low until 

another anticipated spike in 2014. DOE officials stressed, however, that 

“high confidence numbers” are not yet available because the department is 

still in the process of reorganizing and developing new baselines for its 

accelerated cleanup projects, and it does not have a management system 

in place to develop corresponding waste projections. 

Potential changes to the threshold at which waste is classified as LLRW 

that is currently under consideration could also affect the amount of waste 

needing disposal in the future. The National Research Council and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are separately studying this issue 

and considering possible changes that might affect the future management 

of LLRW. The National Research Council is studying the issue because 

members of its Board on Radioactive Waste Management are concerned 

that the statutes and regulations that govern LLRW management may be 

overly restrictive; in some cases, leading to excessive costs and other 

burdens on the waste generator and, in other cases, possibly leading to an 

exaggeration of the potential risks posed by these materials. EPA is 

examining its existing waste regulations and has begun the process of 

soliciting public comment as it considers new rulemaking in this area. 

Specifically, EPA is exploring an option with NRC to establish a regulatory 

framework that allows some of the lower activity radioactive waste to be 

disposed of at non-LLRW disposal facilities.16 Finally, and in a similar vein, 

there has been discussion by government and industry LLRW stakeholders 

of harmonizing U.S. standards with prevailing international standards for 

LLRW under consideration by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Such a change could prompt consideration by U.S. regulators to raise the 

threshold at which the radioactivity of waste would trigger regulation as 

LLRW, and would allow for lower activity LLRW to be disposed of under 

other regulatory regimes. 

 1668 Fed. Reg. 65120 (November 18, 2003). 
Page 18 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

There appears to be enough disposal availability to serve the nation’s 

needs at least until mid-2008, when many states might lose disposal access 

for their class B and C wastes. Disposal availability for class A waste does 

not pose a problem under current conditions. According to Envirocare 

representatives, their disposal site, which accepted over 99 percent of the 

nation’s class A waste in 2003, has enough capacity to accept this waste at 

the current volume levels for more than 20 years. The Richland facility has 

about 21 million cubic feet of capacity remaining for all classes of waste, 

which is more than enough to accommodate the LLRW coming from the 11 

states in the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts until the expected 

closure of this facility in 2056. The Barnwell disposal facility has about 2.7 

million cubic feet of remaining capacity, most of which has been set aside 

for waste from generators in the Atlantic Compact until 2050. Barnwell 

also appears to have enough disposal capacity to continue accepting class 

B and C wastes from other states until mid-2008, when it is scheduled to 

close to all but the three Atlantic compact states. According to the 

Director of Disposal Services at Chem-Nuclear Systems, the operator of 

the Barnwell facility, there should be enough space at the facility to 

accommodate the typical 20,000 to 25,000 cubic feet of class B and C 

wastes accepted at this facility in recent years. This representative told us 

that many generators have already contracted to dispose of their B and C 

wastes in the short term, and any generator outside of the Atlantic 

Compact anticipating a need to dispose of these wastes could still contract 

for the necessary space until mid-2008. 

A number of factors support the likelihood that disposal space for class B 

and C wastes will be available at Barnwell until mid-2008, if disposal 

volumes do not exceed anticipated levels. Based on current space 

commitments at this disposal facility under conditions of the volume caps 

set by the South Carolina legislature, there remains a range of 24,500 to 

44,500 cubic feet of uncommitted space until 2008.17 The amount of space 

available depends on whether Atlantic Compact generators use all of their 

set-aside space through 2008. In addition, utilities are likely to take more 

aggressive efforts to ensure sufficient space for class B and C wastes at 

 17The South Carolina legislature has established annual caps on the amount of LLRW that 

can be disposed of at Barnwell. The caps diminish to 35,000 cubic feet per year by mid-2008 

and at that point the cap remains at 35,000 per year for Atlantic Compact waste alone. The 

annual cap is comprised of (1) a volume amount set aside for generators in the Atlantic 

Compact, (2) committed amounts attributable to generators outside the compact that have 

contracts with the disposal operator, and (3) uncommitted amounts that can be used to 

accommodate additional waste. 

LLRW Disposal 

Availability Appears 

Adequate Until Mid2008 
Page 19 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Barnwell. Industry officials said utilities might consider several initiatives 

and conditions that could alleviate the diminishing disposal availability for 

class B and C wastes. For example, utilities could send class A waste to 

Envirocare rather than Barnwell to save the remaining space at Barnwell 

for class B and C wastes. In addition, utilities might increase waste 

reduction efforts and storage. 

After 2008, disposal availability for the class B and C wastes generated in 

the 36 states outside the Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Atlantic 

compacts is more uncertain. Disposal availability for these states will 

depend on a number of possibilities including extending access to 

Barnwell beyond mid-2008, or creating new disposal options for these 

classes of waste. The Barnwell facility has opened and closed to 

noncompact member states before and it could happen again. Given the 

difficulties of attracting class A waste to Barnwell because of the high 

disposal fees, and the fairly consistent level of class B and C wastes 

shipped to this site each year, the facility might not even reach its volume 

cap of 35,000 cubic feet per year after 2008. In addition, the set-aside of 2.2 

million cubic feet for Atlantic Compact generators through 2050 may be 

negotiated downward, freeing up additional space at this disposal facility. 

There is also some possibility that new disposal options will become 

available in the future that could alleviate any disposal crisis for class B 

and C wastes. We mentioned these disposal options in the previous 

section on changes since 1999 in LLRW disposal availability and federal 

oversight. Finally, regardless of the outcome, representatives of the 

Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy 

industry, said that utilities, the greatest generator of class B and C wastes, 

have the ability to store these wastes on site if they have no disposal 

option. 

If after mid-2008, there are no new disposal options for class B and C 

wastes, licensed users of radioactive materials can continue to minimize 

waste generation, process waste into safer forms, and store waste pending 

the development of additional disposal options. These approaches, 

however, can be costly, with a higher financial burden on some licensees 

than others. Notwithstanding these business costs, we did not detect other 

effects of any shortfalls in disposal availability that might have wider 

implications. 

Any LLRW Disposal 

Shortfall After Mid2008 Unlikely to Pose 

Immediate Problem 
Page 20 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The licensed users of radioactive materials that must eventually dispose of 

their LLRW have employed a variety of techniques to both minimize and 

process this waste to reduce its volume prior to storage and eventual 

disposal.18 These techniques include substitution of nonradioactive 

materials for radioactive materials, separation of radioactive materials 

from nonradioactive materials, recycling, compaction, dilution, and 

incineration. For example, it is reported that most large research 

institutions make concerted efforts to find suitable and appropriate 

alternatives to the use of radioactive materials. One university official told 

us that such efforts have reduced LLRW generation at his institution by 30 

percent in the last 5 years. The Electric Power Research Institute is 

encouraging nuclear utilities to use vendor volume reduction programs for 

resins, the single largest component of class B and C wastes, to reduce 

volume. Some licensees have used processors to super-compact class A 

waste to achieve up to a 5,000 percent reduction in volume, or to reduce 

this waste to ash through incineration, albeit increasing the concentration 

of radioisotopes. 

In addition to minimization of LLRW, licensees can decide to store this 

waste when no disposal option is available to them. In order to obtain a 

license to possess radioactive materials, entities must demonstrate the 

technical capability to safely manage them. Various reasons are given for 

storing waste, including allowing short-lived radioactive materials to decay 

to innocuous levels to avoid the need for disposal in a more expensive 

LLRW facility, the prohibitively high cost of disposal for some licensees, 

and concerns about the potential liability of sending the waste to a 

disposal site. Universities and biomedical companies generally rely on 

storage for decay for their LLRW, although finding space within large 

research institutions in urban settings is more difficult. The high cost of 

LLRW disposal can also pose financial problems for some licensees. Over 

the last 25 years, disposal costs have risen from $1 per cubic foot of LLRW 

to over $400 per cubic foot, with projections of well over $1,000 per cubic 

foot in the future. For some LLRW, the Barnwell disposal facility now 

charges $1,625 per cubic foot. These disposal costs can reach hundreds of 

millions of dollars for utility companies that are decommissioning their 

nuclear power plants. NRC reported to us that the cost to fully 

 18According to the NRC there are approximately 21,600 entities licensed by either NRC or 

an Agreement State to use radioactive materials, about 75 percent use either sealed 

sources, which can be returned to the manufacturer or small amounts of radioactive 

materials that decay rapidly leaving little or no residual radioactive contamination requiring 

clean up or disposal. 

LLRW Minimization and 

Storage Can Lessen Effects 

of any Disposal Shortfall 
Page 21 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

decommission a plant can run as high as $675 million. Finally, some 

licensees will not send their LLRW to disposal facilities because they are 

concerned that the mixing of their waste with other waste might draw 

them into litigation if the disposal site should ever require cleanup under 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, as amended (commonly referred to as Superfund). 

While NRC policy favors disposal rather than storage over the long-term, 

since the mid-1990’s, the Commission has allowed on-site storage of LLRW 

without a specified time limit as long as it is safe. The Commission took 

this approach in part because LLRW can be stored and the states were not 

developing any new disposal facilities. According to the agency, NRC and 

Agreement State license and inspection programs help ensure the safe 

management of stored LLRW. However, some licensees are concerned that 

a fire, flood, or an earthquake might cause an unintended radioactive 

release. If an emergency ever should arise from stored LLRW, NRC has 

authority under the Act to override any compact restrictions to allow 

shipment of LLRW to a regional or other nonfederal disposal facility, if 

necessary under narrowly defined conditions, to eliminate an immediate 

and serious threat to the public health and safety or to the common 

defense and security.19 Since September 11, 2001, the perception of the 

risks posed by potential use of stored LLRW by terrorists has increased. A 

recent report found that at least a few radioisotopes of greatest security 

concern are classified as LLRW.20 According to the report, while 

radiological dispersal devices, such as a dirty bomb, are not weapons of 

mass destruction, they could cause mass disruption, dislocation, and 

adverse financial consequences associated with decontamination and 

rebuilding. NRC officials told us that as the volume and duration of stored 

LLRW increases so might the safety and security risks. 

While waste minimization and storage can alleviate the need for disposal, 

they can be costly. The licensees that we interviewed provided many 

examples of the high cost of managing LLRW. For example, one university 

 19The narrowly defined conditions are pursuant to 10 C.F.R., Part 62. The alternatives that 

must be explored by the person making the request include storing at the site of generation 

or at a licensed facility, purchasing disposal capacity, or requesting disposal at a federal 

LLRW disposal facility. 

20Ferguson, Charles, Tahseen Kazi, and Judith Perera. Commercial Radioactive Sources: 

Surveying the Security Risks (Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, 

Monterey Institute of International Studies, January 2003). 

LLRW Minimization and 

Storage Can Be Costly 
Page 22 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

recently built a $12 million combined hazardous and radioactive waste 

management facility of which two-thirds is devoted to the processing and 

temporary storage of class A waste. And, a medical center official took us 

to a small (12’ x12’) LLRW interim storage and processing room that cost 

the institution about $150,000 to construct to meet stringent health and 

environmental standards. There are also costs associated with operating 

storage facilities. Representatives from one university system told us that 

about $100,000 is spent annually to maintain its interim storage building in 

a remote area of the state. Added to the cost of building and operating a 

storage facility is the cost of securing it. Such costs have been accounted 

for in higher utility rates, university overhead charges, drug prices, and 

medical treatments. These costs of doing business are more difficult for 

some entities to absorb than others. For example, representatives from 

several biotechnology companies told us that the industry, particularly the 

smaller start-up companies, are not prepared for the financial cost of 

storing and securing LLRW. 

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. In an effort to 

identify any such effects, we initially asked some questions on our survey 

of compact and unaffiliated state LLRW officials regarding documented 

effects on LLRW generators of any restricted disposal availability. Virtually 

no citations were provided or current concerns raised. We then sought 

information from a broader constituency in a further attempt to find 

evidence of such effects. We collaborated with medical researchers at the 

University of Texas to seek information from two overlapping groups 

involved in LLRW management: the approximately 2,000 subscribers of the 

RadSafe Listserv, a listserv for radiation safety officers, and the 

approximately 6,000 members of the Health Physics Society, a scientific 

and professional organization whose members specialize in occupational 

and environmental radiation safety.21 We sought information on any known 

cases where there have been or might be adverse effects on research 

activities and clinical practice stemming from costs or difficulties related 

to the storage and disposal of LLRW. Specifically, we e-mailed 

questionnaires asking if these factors have caused or might cause a 

 21These surveys of RadSafe Listserv subscribers and Health Physics Society members are 

not considered scientific sample surveys because the self-selected respondents came from 

a nonprobability sample of a largely unknown list of people. 

No Other Widespread 

Effects Detected of 

Shortfall in LLRW Disposal 

Availability 
Page 23 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

discontinuance or disapproval of any research or clinical endeavors to 

RadSafe Listserv subscribers and placed a notice in the Health Physics 

Society’s newsletter asking for volunteers to answer the same questions 

we sent to the listserv subscribers. We obtained an extremely low 

response rate to these questions—14 responses from listserv subscribers 

and 6 from Health Physics Society members. Because these were 

nonprobability sample surveys the results are not generalizable and can 

only be used for anecdotal purposes. Of these respondents, only two said 

that the difficulties associated with LLRW had adversely affected research 

or clinical practice. Several respondents cited the challenges of dealing 

with LLRW, but also noted that they work around the difficulties through 

waste minimization, including substituting nonradioactive materials for 

radioactive materials when possible, and on-site storage as needed. The 

survey results provided no evidence of any widespread effects on research 

activities and clinical practice stemming from costs or difficulties related 

to the storage and disposal of LLRW in the last 5 years. 

We also had limited success in identifying published reports on the 

possible effects that lack of LLRW disposal options might have on waste 

generators. We identified a report supported by DOE that surveyed LLRW 

generators in Michigan during a period when they had no disposal 

alternative from 1990 to 1995. The survey found that storage costs were 

actually a small cost for most businesses, and that few broader 

socioeconomic effects were noted.22 Another report reviewed the potential 

impact of LLRW management policies on biomedical research in the 

United States. The 2001 National Research Council report concluded that 

the central issue was the cost of managing LLRW, and not access to 

disposal facilities.23 The report found that it would take 10 to 20 years 

before a lack of LLRW disposal options might have an adverse effect on 

biomedical research or medical care. However, the report cautioned that if 

use of radioisotopes increases or the use of longer half-life radioisotopes 

increases in the future, the system of LLRW storage, monitoring, 

inspection, and disposal might not be adequate to meet the needs of this 

expansion. 

 22Stupka, Richard, Barbara Lewis and James Langsted, Case Study of Michigan Low-Level 

Radioactive Waste Generators (Denver, CO: Dames & Moore, DOE Programs Group, 

September 1993). 

23National Research Council, The Impact of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Policy on Biomedical Research in the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Academy 

Press, 2001). 
Page 24 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Although no shortfall in disposal availability appears imminent, 

uncertainties remain about future access to disposal facilities. Even with 

the prospect of new disposal options, there is no guarantee that they will 

be developed or be available to meet national needs for class B and C 

wastes disposal. While LLRW generators have options available to mitigate 

any future disposal shortfall, including storing waste, storage is costly and 

it can lead to increased safety and security risks. Therefore, continued 

federal oversight of disposal availability and the conditions of stored 

waste is warranted. 

Federal oversight is necessary to oversee disposal availability and the 

conditions of stored waste. However, DOE and NRC have reduced their 

oversight of LLRW management by the states. DOE’s involvement is now 

limited to maintaining its online national LLRW database, which has 

internal control weaknesses and other shortcomings. At the same time, 

DOE has become the largest LLRW generator shipping to commercial 

disposal facilities and thus has become a part of the system on which it 

was initially supposed to report. NRC’s involvement with LLRW 

management has similarly decreased because no new disposal facilities 

were being developed, and an increasing number of Agreement State 

agencies have taken over many responsibilities for overseeing radioactive 

material use, storage, and disposal. As a result of this decreased federal 

oversight and a national LLRW database with known deficiencies, there is 

no central collection of information to monitor disposal availability and 

the conditions of stored LLRW. 

Given that NRC is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the use, 

storage, and disposal of radioactive materials, and DOE’s changed role in 

LLRW management, we believe that NRC is now the most appropriate 

agency to report to the Congress on LLRW conditions. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Energy halt dissemination of 

information contained in the online national LLRW database as long as the 

database has internal control weaknesses and shortcomings in its 

usefulness and reliability. 

The Congress may wish to consider directing NRC to report to it if LLRW 

disposal and storage conditions should change enough to warrant 

congressional evaluation of alternatives to ensure safe, reliable and cost 

effectiveness of disposal availability. 

Conclusions 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Matters for 

Congressional 

Consideration 
Page 25 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

We provided a draft of this report to DOE and NRC for their review and 

comment. DOE’s written comments are reproduced in appendix IV. DOE 

agreed with our assessment that disposal availability is adequate for the 

near future. DOE disagreed with our recommendation to halt 

dissemination of information in its national LLRW database. DOE stated 

that our report did not adequately characterize the usefulness of MIMS, 

and that removal of the national LLRW database without an alternative 

would evoke criticism from states and regional compacts and would not 

fulfill the requirement in the Act to maintain such a database. Our 

recommendation did not call for removal of this database. Instead, we 

recommended halting dissemination of information in this database as 

long as the database has internal control weaknesses and shortcomings in 

its usefulness and reliability. This action might only temporarily restrict 

access to the online national LLRW database. DOE did this for about 2 

months in late 2003 and early 2004 to correct system problems with MIMS. 

With regard to the usefulness of MIMS, our report noted that state and 

compact officials use MIMS to respond to public inquiries and to monitor 

LLRW; however, the consensus among the officials we surveyed was that 

they could more effectively regulate and monitor LLRW if MIMS offered 

more comprehensive and reliable data. DOE did not address our concerns 

about internal control weaknesses and other shortcomings in the 

database. We stand by our recommendation to DOE because we believe 

that it is inappropriate to disseminate information that is known to be 

incomplete and unreliable. 

NRC’s written comments are reproduced in appendix V. NRC commented 

that we provided an accurate summary of current LLRW disposal 

conditions and potential issues that may be encountered in the future. 

NRC disagreed with our suggestion that the Congress consider directing it 

to gather information necessary to monitor the adequacy of LLRW 

disposal availability and the safety and security of stored waste, and to 

report to the Congress on significant changes in LLRW disposal and 

storage conditions. In commenting on our draft report, NRC provided 

information on data gathering actions already in place or planned that it 

contends would adequately ensure the safety and security of radioactive 

materials, including stored LLRW, which is an alternative to disposal. 

Given these actions and the concerns of NRC with the regulatory cost, 

such as new rulemaking, associated with gather information on LLRW 

disposal and storage conditions, we eliminated this suggested 

congressional directive. In regard to our reporting suggestion, NRC 

commented that it believes that such monitoring and reporting, if 

necessary, would fall within the responsibility of DOE as was previously 

recognized by the Act. However, as our report noted, the Congress 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 26 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

eliminated DOE’s reporting responsibilities under the Act and no longer 

specifically appropriates funds to support a National Low-Level Waste 

Management Program. Given the need for continued federal oversight of 

LLRW conditions, we maintain that NRC is now the most appropriate 

agency to report to the Congress if LLRW disposal and storage conditions 

should change enough to warrant congressional intervention. 

We incorporated technical changes in this report where appropriate based 

on detailed comments provided by the agencies. 

As agreed with your office, we will make copies of this report available to 

others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841 or Dan Feehan, Assistant Director, at (303) 572-7352. 

Major contributors to this report include Doreen Feldman, Curtis Groves, 

Alan Kasdan, Thomas Laetz, Cynthia Norris, Daniel Semick, Richard 

Shargots, and Kevin Tarmann. 

Sincerely yours, 

Robin M. Nazzaro 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 27 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

There are currently three commercial disposal facilities operating in the 

country, two of which were part of the group of six facilities established 

back in the 1960s. The facilities in Barnwell, South Carolina, and Richland, 

Washington, are the only ones that remain open today. Each of these 

facilities is located adjacent to or within the boundaries of a much larger 

site owned by DOE. The third facility is located outside of Salt Lake City, 

Utah. Figure 3 shows the location of three commercial disposal facilities. 

Figure 3: Location of Three Commercial LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Appendix I: Overview of Existing 

Commercial LLRW Disposal Facilities 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 28 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The Barnwell disposal facility was opened in 1969, but the actual license to 

use about 17 acres of land for shallow burial of LLRW in Barnwell County, 

South Carolina, was issued in 1971. This commercial site is located near 

the much larger Savannah River Site owned by DOE. In 1976, the site was 

expanded to its present size of 235 acres with an original capacity to hold 

30.6 million cubic feet of all classes of radioactive waste and some other 

types of waste. 

South Carolina is the current host state for the Atlantic Compact; the 

compact comprises South Carolina, Connecticut, and New Jersey. South 

Carolina was originally in the 8-member Southeast Compact that was 

ratified by the Congress in 1985. However, in 1995, the state withdrew 

from this compact to become an unaffiliated state primarily because 

another member of the compact, North Carolina, had failed to develop a 

new disposal facility as planned by 1992. In 2000, the state joined the 

Northeast Compact. The name of the Northeast Compact was later 

changed to the Atlantic Compact to better characterize the geographic 

affiliation of the three member states. During the history of South Carolina 

as a compact state and an unaffiliated state, the state legislature has only 

restricted national access to the Barnwell disposal facility for one year, 

between July 1994 and June 1995, excluding some temporary access 

restrictions placed on Michigan between 1990 and 1995, and North 

Carolina between 1995 and 2000. 

Three state regulatory entities have roles and responsibilities associated 

with the operation of the Barnwell disposal facility. The South Carolina 

Budget and Control Board owns the land that is set aside for the LLRW 

disposal, and it will assume responsibility for the site after it closes. 

Among other responsibilities, this board approves the disposal rates and 

authorizes the import of out-of-compact waste to Barnwell. In conjunction 

with the South Carolina Public Service Commission, the board determines 

allowable operating costs that can be charged by the operator. The 

operator is reimbursed for these operating costs and is allowed a 29 

percent margin above most of these costs. As South Carolina is an 

Agreement State, the Department of Health and Environmental Control 

has licensing and technical regulatory authority over Barnwell. 

Chem-Nuclear Systems has operated the Barnwell disposal facility 

continuously since it opened. In 2000, this company became a subsidiary 

of Duratek, Incorporated, which had purchased the owner of ChemBarnwell Disposal 

Facility 

Compact Affiliation 

State Regulators 

Disposal Operator 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 29 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Nuclear Systems, Waste Management Nuclear Services. According to 

company officials, there are about 100 Duratek employees at the Barnwell 

facility, of which 60 to 70 deal with the disposal operations and retain the 

Chem-Nuclear Systems name. About 10 years ago there were about 350 

employees at Barnwell, when disposal intake was higher. 

The Barnwell disposal facility is reaching its capacity. About 102 acres of 

the 235-acre site has been filled, with about 13 acres left for disposal. 

According to company officials, there is about 2.7 million cubic feet of 

space remaining. The vast majority of this remaining space, about 2.2 

million cubic feet, has been set aside for the decommissioning of the 12 

nuclear power plants in the three state compact region. The 

decommissioning waste is anticipated at about 12,000 cubic feet per 

facility annually, beginning around 2031 and lasting for about 20 years. 

Each facility is expected to produce much more LLRW, but much of this 

waste will likely be shipped to Envirocare of Utah. 

The Barnwell disposal facility is planned for closure to out-of-compact 

waste by mid- 2008. In 2001, the South Carolina legislature imposed 

volume caps on the amount of waste that could be accepted at Barnwell. 

Between 2001 and 2008, the facility is allowed to accept decreasing levels 

of waste until it reaches a steady state level of 35,000 cubic feet in 2008. 

State officials told us that the legislature set the cap at 35,000 cubic feet to 

provide revenues sufficient to cover operating costs and all other 

obligations; however, at current disposal rates, the breakeven volume 

intake might be as low as 20,000 cubic feet annually. These caps were 

based on an earlier task force report that provided a “road map’” for 

discontinuing South Carolina’s national role in providing disposal and 

ensuring that capacity would remain to serve the future needs of South 

Carolina generators. 

Barnwell has the highest disposal rates among the three commercial 

disposal facilities. In part, the rates have increased over the years with the 

additions of special fees, taxes, and surcharges. Noncompact generators 

have increasingly paid far more to dispose their waste than generators 

within the compact states, especially South Carolina generators, that 

receive a 33 percent rebate on their disposal fees. The 2003 rate for 

compact generators does not exceed about $400 per cubic foot for any 

class of waste, whereas for noncompact waste coming from processors 

with importation agreements, it is set at $1,625 per cubic foot. The most 

sizeable increase in disposal fees came in 1995, when South Carolina 

imposed a $235 per cubic foot tax on the LLRW accepted by Barnwell. In 

Current Conditions 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 30 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

fiscal year 2002, of the approximately $34 million in gross disposal receipts 

from waste coming to Barnwell, about $11.6 million went to the operator, 

and most of the remaining 66 percent went to the state, primarily to 

support education programs. 

Notwithstanding the existing caps on the volume of waste that can be 

accepted at Barnwell through mid-2008, there are some indications that 

the legislature may reconsider its position on these caps. First, there has 

been a shortfall in the volume of waste that has actually come to Barnwell 

in the last 3 years. Company officials told us that this shortfall is 60,592 

cubic feet. Negotiations are taking place to determine if this shortfall can 

be added to the cap levels over the next several years to make up the 

difference. Second, two utilities that had committed space at Barnwell 

have decided not to send a reactor vessel and several steam generators to 

this facility. This would free up even more space, if it were made available. 

Finally, other space might become available if prior allocation 

commitments to the 12 nuclear power plants in the Atlantic Compact are 

revised downward, given changes in how to manage the decommissioning 

of nuclear power plants. The Electric Power Research Institute is working 

with utilities on reducing their space needs at Barnwell. Figure 4 shows 

the delivery of a large reactor vessel to the LLRW trench at the Barnwell 

disposal facility. 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 31 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Figure 4: Delivery of a Large Reactor Vessel to the LLRW Trench at the Barnwell 

Disposal Facility 

Since 1988, Envirocare has operated a 540-acre disposal facility 80 miles 

west of Salt Lake City. The facility is located in Tooele County within a 

100-square mile hazardous waste zone that includes two hazardous waste 

incinerators, the Army’s nerve gas storage site, and the Army’s Dugway 

Proving Grounds. Prior to the low-level waste disposal site, DOE used the 

area for the disposal of uranium mill tailings. Much of the waste disposed 

at Envirocare comes from cleanup of commercial and government 

facilities. Also, Envirocare is the only commercial disposal facility to 

accept mixed waste, which is a combination of radioactive and hazardous 

waste. In 2003, Envirocare took about 99 percent of the nation’s class A 

waste. 

While Utah is part of the Northwest Compact, which includes seven other 

states, it is not the host state for the compact’s LLRW disposal facility. 

Envirocare Disposal 

Facility 

Compact Affiliation 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 32 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Originally, Utah approved Envirocare’s operation for accepting naturally 

occurring radioactive material—large volume, low activity low-level 

radioactive wastes. In 1991, recognizing that the Northwest Compact 

planned to exercise its exclusionary authority at the beginning of 1993, 

Utah and Envirocare sought a resolution from the Compact that would 

allow this disposal facility to continue to accept these specific types of 

low-level waste once the compact exercised its exclusionary authority.24

Realizing that proposed disposal facilities in other states and compacts 

were not designed to take wastes of such large volume, the Northwest 

Compact adopted a resolution and order that allowed continued access to 

Envirocare by those states that met the milestone requirements of the 

Act.25 In 1995, the resolution and order were amended to include a 

provision that states and compacts in which low-level waste is generated, 

including the Northwest Compact, must authorize any shipment of this 

waste to Envirocare. This was done to ensure that states and compacts 

maintain control over the disposition of LLRW generated within their state 

or compact. The resolution and order was also amended to delete the 

provision regarding the statutory milestone requirements since those 

milestones were no longer relevant. According to the executive director of 

the Northwest Compact, the compact retains the right to modify or rescind 

this authorization at any time. In 1998, Utah issued a license amendment 

for Envirocare to accept all types of class A low-level waste. To date, the 

Northwest Compact has not approved sending LLRW generated within the 

compact states, including Utah, to the Envirocare disposal facility. 

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality has licensing and 

regulatory authority for the Envirocare facility. Envirocare’s license has 

been amended at least 10 times to allow more types of radioactive waste 

including in 1991 when the state permitted disposal of low-level waste, in 

1995 when Envirocare became the only commercial disposal facility 

 24The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 gave compacts the 

ability to exclude waste outside each compact’s regional boundaries. 

25One milestone, for example, set a deadline of January 1, 1992, for states and compacts to 

submit a license application for disposal facilities in their respective regions. Another 

milestone required that if a state did not have a viable disposal facility by January 1, 1996, a 

state or state(s) in a compact must take title to the waste when requested by generators. 

However, in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this provision was unconstitutional. 

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992). 

State Regulators 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 33 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

licensed for mixed waste, and in 2001 when Utah approved an amendment 

for Envirocare to accept all types of class A waste.26

On July 9, 2001, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality approved 

Envirocare’s license application to accept class B and C wastes. Appeals 

were filed and on February 10, 2002, the department affirmed the 

approval. In March 2003, the Governor of Utah signed a bill placing a 

moratorium on any acceptance of class B or C wastes through February 

15, 2005, and requiring legislative and gubernatorial approval for 

acceptance of these wastes. Enactment of the bill also created a task force 

composed of 16 state legislators to study radioactive waste, hazardous 

waste, and commercial solid waste issues in the state, including state 

policy and an evaluation of fees and taxes imposed on these wastes. The 

task force will issue a report with specific recommendations by November 

30, 2004, on, among other things, whether the state should accept class B 

and C wastes. 

Envirocare, a privately owned company, has operated the disposal facility 

since its inception in 1988. The company said it has about 400 employees 

and about 250 employees are directly involved with low-level radioactive 

waste operations. Unlike the Barnwell and Richland sites, Envirocare 

owns the disposal site land. NRC normally requires institutional ownership 

of disposal sites in post-closure.27 However, at the inception of a license for 

the disposal facility in Utah the state’s Department of Environmental 

Quality established a national precedent when it exempted the site from 

rules requiring institutional ownership. At the time, Utah regulations 

contained a section compatible with NRC’s rule that disposal from other 

persons would be permitted only on land owned by the federal or state 

government. Nevertheless, Utah did not have legislative authority to own 

land used for disposal of LLRW. While the private entity is allowed to own 

the land indefinitely, the state requires that Envirocare carry a surety fund, 

 26Allowing all types of class A waste includes containerized class A waste, which is 

shipped, received, and disposed in remotely-handled sealed containers. By contrast, bulk 

waste is generally removed from its shipping containers and is “contact-handled” in a 

process that typically involves compacting the waste in 12-inch layers over the disposal 

area. Unlike the Barnwell and Richland commercial disposal sites, waste at Envirocare is 

placed in broad, shallow cells that are designed to finish above-grade. These disposal cells 

are constructed using native clay and rocks as liner and cap materials. 

27According to NRC, Utah exempted Envirocare from the requirement that the federal or 

state government own the disposal site land. 

Disposal Operator 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 34 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

currently about $40 million for low level and other wastes, for eventual 

site closure, decommissioning, and long-term stewardship. Utah will 

receive the funds if Envirocare should become unable to perform site 

closure and decommissioning. 

The disposal site has the capacity for more than 20 years of disposal under 

its current license. According to Envirocare officials, at the beginning of 

March 2004 the disposal facility had 58.9 million cubic feet of class A 

waste. The officials anticipate that the disposal facility will accommodate 

more than 20 years of waste for several reasons, such as a reduction in the 

annual disposal of waste at Envirocare. 

Envirocare typically has a contract condition requiring that its commercial 

disposal rates not be disclosed. While disposal rates are available for DOE 

waste, they are not reflective of disposal rates for other LLRW generators. 

According DOE officials, DOE receives a more favorable disposal rate 

than generally available to other LLRW generators because DOE can 

obtain discounted rates from Envirocare given the large volumes of waste 

it has for disposal and that it can use its own disposal facilities. DOE 

represents more than half of Envirocare’s business. DOE’s contract with 

Envirocare, which expires June 29, 2004, includes disposal rates ranging 

from a minimum of about $5.25 per cubic foot for soil to a minimum of 

about $14.80 per cubic foot for debris.28 Most DOE waste is shipped to 

Envirocare in bulk containers. According to DOE officials, Envirocare’s 

rail access and closer proximity to DOE sites east of Utah provide a 

disposal cost advantage over using DOE disposal facilities. 

Envirocare is subject to fees and taxes on waste disposal. The legislature 

raised fees and taxes in 2003 after a citizens’ initiative to substantially 

increase the fee and tax structure failed. The state levies a fee of 15 cents 

per cubic feet of waste and $1 per curie for radioactive waste. These funds 

are used to offset program costs for oversight. In addition, each generator 

pays a fee to the state ranging from $500 to $1,300 for a generator site 

access permit. These funds as well as a $5,000 fee paid by each broker are 

for state oversight of the disposal facility. In addition, the state imposes a 

fee ranging from 5 percent to 12 percent of gross receipts of the disposal 

operator as general tax revenue to be used in a manner determined by the 

 28The contract has 4 additional option years. New contacts and revisions may require that 

additional taxes be included. 

Current Conditions 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 35 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

state legislature. The amount is based on the type of waste and whether 

the source is from a government or nongovernmental generator. In 

addition, as of 2002, Envirocare is required to pay the state a perpetual 

care fee of $400,000 per year. Also, Tooele County imposes a 5 percent fee 

on the operator’s gross receipts. In recent years the operator has provided 

the county about $4 million annually. Those funds are general tax revenue 

for the county. According to the disposal operator, on average, Envirocare 

provides 25 percent of the county’s budget. Figure 5 shows the rail 

unloading facility for disposal of class A bulk waste at the Envirocare 

facility. 

Figure 5: Rail Unloading Facility Associated with Class A Bulk Waste Disposal at 

the Envirocare Disposal Facility 

The Richland disposal facility was opened in July 1965. It is situated in 

Benton County, Washington, approximately 23 miles northwest of the city 

of Richland, near the center of DOE’s 560 square mile Hanford reservation 

on 100 of the 1,000 acres of land leased by the State of Washington from 

the federal government in 1964 for 100 years. The state had hoped to 

Richland Disposal 

Facility 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 36 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

attract other nuclear-related businesses to the site as part of an economic 

development strategy for the Richland-Kennewick-Pasco region. In 1993, 

DOE exercised its right under the terms of the lease to reclaim the 900 

acres that remained unutilized. 

Washington is the current host state for the Northwest Interstate Compact 

on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management. Besides Washington, the 

original members of the compact are Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 

Oregon, and Utah. The Northwest Compact was established in 1981 and 

ratified by the Congress in 1985. An eighth state, Wyoming, joined the 

compact in 1992. Also in 1992, the Rocky Mountain Compact, comprised of 

Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, reached agreement with the 

Northwest Compact and the state of Washington to send up to 6,000 cubic 

feet of LLRW to the Richland disposal facility annually, plus a 3 percent 

per annum growth factor. The Northwest Compact did so because the 

Rocky Mountain Compact expected generation of only a relatively small 

volume of LLRW once the decommissioning of its only nuclear power 

plant (Fort St. Vrain in Colorado) was completed. Since 1993, the Richland 

disposal facility has been open to LLRW only from generators in the 11 

states of the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts. Regardless of the 

state of origin, Richland may accept naturally-occurring and acceleratorproduced radioactive material, which is not addressed by the compact. 

The Richland facility accepted nonradioactive hazardous and mixed 

wastes until 1985. 

Three state regulatory bodies have roles and responsibilities associated 

with the operation of the Richland disposal facility: the Department of 

Health, the Department of Ecology, and the Washington Utilities and 

Transportation Commission. The Department of Health exercises primary 

regulatory responsibility over the disposal facility. It issues licenses to the 

facility operator and regulates radioactive materials. A Department of 

Health inspector examines each shipment of waste prior to disposal to 

ensure compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, the NRC, and the State of Washington. The Department of 

Ecology has primary program responsibility. It issues individual permits 

for radioactive waste disposal to generators, serves as the site landlord, 

and monitors the activities of the Northwest Compact. The Washington 

Utilities and Transportation Commission approves the disposal fees on an 

annual basis. Fees are set at a rate estimated by the facility operator, US 

Ecology, to produce enough revenue to cover all costs of operating the 

facility and provide a 29 percent profit. As an integral part of the fee 

Compact Affiliation 

State Regulators 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 37 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

setting process, the operator polls site users to obtain their projections for 

how much waste they plan to ship in the coming year. These estimates are 

the basis on which fees are set. 

The private, for-profit contractor, US Ecology Incorporated, a subsidiary 

of Boise, Idaho-based American Ecology Corporation, and its corporate 

antecedents, has operated the Richland disposal facility since it opened. 

According to company officials, there are currently 18 US Ecology 

employees working at the Richland facility, in addition to 4 administrative 

staff. 

The Richland facility has much unused capacity to accept LLRW. 

According to state regulators and company officials, the remaining 

capacity at Richland is approximately 21 million cubic feet. To date the 

facility has disposed of approximately 13.9 million cubic feet of LLRW in 

20 trenches. About 95 percent of the waste received is class A. There has 

been a significant decline in disposal volumes since 1993, when the 

Northwest Compact placed restrictions on the origin of the waste that the 

Richland disposal facility could accept. In the 5 years preceding these 

restrictions, the average annual amount of LLRW waste disposed was 

395,000 cubic feet. In the 11 years since Richland began excluding waste 

from outside the Northwest and Rocky Mountain Compacts, the average 

amount of waste disposed annually is about 142,000 cubic feet, though 

individual years have been as high as 282,000 and as low as 61,000. At the 

current rates of disposal, fewer than 10 more trenches will be filled, or 

approximately 60 percent of the total available disposal capacity, when the 

facility is expected to close in 2056, 7 years before the state lease on the 

land expires. 

Disposal fees and other assorted fees for LLRW or naturally-occurring and 

accelerator-produced radioactive material waste at Richland are lower 

than the Barnwell disposal facility, but generally higher than those charged 

by Envirocare of Utah. Unit costs for disposal are calculated on a declining 

volume scale. That is, the lower the volume of waste disposed in a given 

year the higher the unit costs of disposal must be in order to reach the 

annual, state-approved revenue requirement. Generators pay a number of 

fees and surcharges to the State of Washington and US Ecology on each 

cubic foot they dispose at Richland. The state charges a site use permit fee 

that varies according to volume. For example, fees for waste disposed 

between March 1, 2004, and February 28, 2005, range from $425 for up to 

50 cubic feet to $14,840 for 2,500 cubic feet and more. Nuclear utilities and 

Disposal Operator 

Current Conditions 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 38 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

brokers pay flat annual site use permit fees of $42,400 and $1,000, 

respectively. The state also imposes other fees and taxes to support local 

economic development, state agency expenses directly related to the 

regulation and operation of the facility, and for the Perpetual Care and 

Maintenance Fund. Unlike the other two commercial LLRW disposal 

facilities, none of these fees or taxes go directly to the state’s general 

revenue fund. The facility also pays a business and occupation tax. 

In addition to the state fees, generators also pay US Ecology’s disposal 

charges, which are based on an annual revenue requirement authorized by 

the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. All LLRW 

disposed at Richland is assessed charges based on access, volume, 

shipment(s), container(s), and exposure. For example, based on a 

projected disposal volume of 50,000 cubic feet of LLRW in 2004 and an 

annual revenue requirement of approximately $5.4 million, the site 

operator charges average approximately $108 per cubic foot. The 

surcharges assessed by the state on disposed waste would generate 

another $325,000 for local government ($6.50 per cubic foot), $450,000 to 

cover the regulatory costs of the Washington Department of Health ($9.00 

per cubic foot), and at least $230,000 in site use permit fees to cover the 

regulatory costs of the Washington Department of Ecology and the 

administrative expenses of the Northwest Compact. The sum of these fees, 

charges, and surcharges paid by generators to the state and US Ecology in 

2004 is expected to total approximately $6.4 million. These associated fees 

increase the average cost of disposal of LLRW to approximately $128 per 

cubic foot. This average is calculated based on the expectation that 95 

percent of the waste disposed will be class A; typical class B and C waste 

disposal costs per cubic foot would be higher than this average as activity 

and other surcharges, which could be considerable, would apply. 

There is a strong desire to control the origin, and therefore the volume and 

nature of the waste disposed at Richland. The State of Washington was a 

lobbying force behind passage of the Act that allowed compacts to restrict 

access to disposal facilities. The state and US Ecology have agreed in 

concept to a new clause in the sublease agreement, which is expected to 

be renewed in 2005, providing for termination of the sublease if federal 

law eliminates the Northwest Compact’s restrictive authority on waste 

importation. This policy is also reflected in the host state agreements with 

the Northwest Compact and indirectly with the Rocky Mountain Compact. 

Terminating the sublease would effectively shut down the disposal facility. 

Figure 6 shows the LLRW disposal trench at the Richland disposal facility. 
Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial 

LLRW Disposal Facilities 

Page 39 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Figure 6: LLRW Disposal Trench at the Richland Disposal Facility 
Appendix II: LLRW Legislative Options 

Page 40 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The inability of states to develop any new regional disposal facilities since 

passage of the Low-Level Waste Policy Act (the Act) and occasional 

shortfalls in disposal availability have perpetuated debate about the need 

for further congressional intervention. GAO reported on the status of 

commercial LLRW disposal in 1995 and 1999. In our last report, we 

assessed three management options to address concerns about limited or 

no disposal access for generators of LLRW. While we acknowledged that 

LLRW could be stored for decades or even longer in assured isolation 

facilities, we noted that storage would only postpone, not replace, the 

need for disposal. The three options were (1) allowing the compact system 

under existing federal legislation to adapt to the changing LLRW situation, 

(2) repealing the existing federal legislation to allow market forces to 

respond to the changing LLRW situation, and (3) using DOE disposal 

facilities for commercial waste. The changes that occurred since our 1999 

report affect the viability of these options in various ways, particularly the 

status quo option to maintain the existing compact system if no disposal 

options are available for class B and C wastes after mid-2008. 

Proponents of retaining the compact approach cite the degree of control 

that states exercise over LLRW management and flexibility in meeting 

changing circumstances. For example, facing declining waste volumes and 

satisfactory access to existing disposal facilities, states and compacts were 

able to avoid building expensive facilities that were not needed. In 

addition, an existing non-LLRW disposal facility was allowed to accept 

high volume, low-activity radioactive wastes nationally, even though it was 

located in a state that already had access to a licensed LLRW disposal 

facility. Further, under the compact system states were allowed to move 

from one compact to another or to become unaffiliated, and two compacts 

decided to share one disposal facility. And, most recently, the state 

regulator in Texas will begin accepting license applications to develop a 

new disposal facility that might be open in early 2008. 

Opponents of the compact approach point out that, despite all of this 

flexibility, not one compact has successfully developed a new disposal 

facility for LLRW despite spending millions to do so. Even the proposed 

disposal facility in Texas is moving through the approval process having 

never formed a Texas LLRW disposal compact commission. In 1999, we 

estimated that collectively, the states and compacts had spent about $600 

million in trying to develop these facilities. Nuclear industry association 

officials estimate that expenditures may now have reached approximately 

$1 billion. Some of these additional costs are associated with ongoing 

litigation in California, Nebraska, and North Carolina regarding the failure 

Appendix II: LLRW Legislative Options 

Retain the Compact 

Approach 
Appendix II: LLRW Legislative Options 

Page 41 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

of these states to fulfill their host state obligations to build LLRW disposal 

facilities after expenditures had been made to do so. In addition, there are 

certainly opportunity costs associated with this expenditure, and there 

may be an incalculable loss of advancement in nuclear research and 

medicine because the cost of disposal or lack of options may have 

diminished the desire to use radioactive materials. 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. 

Opponents of the compact system have called for repealing the LLRW 

Policy Act because of the unsuccessful attempts to develop new regional 

LLRW disposal facilities, coupled with authority under the Act to restrict 

access to existing commercial facilities that otherwise have disposal 

capacity. Eliminating access restrictions would allow commercial disposal 

operators to better adapt and respond to changing market conditions. And, 

repeal of the legislation could create a national LLRW disposal market that 

might lead to more competition and lower disposal fees. 

It would probably be difficult to build enough political support to repeal 

the LLRW Policy Act, however, given no imminent national crisis in the 

short term, and some states would likely resist opening their disposal 

facilities nationally. Even if the Congress repealed the Act, it would not 

necessarily affect the existence of each compact consented to prior to 

repeal. This would mean that a compact provision prohibiting the 

acceptance of waste for disposal from outside the compact region would 

continue in effect. However, under the Act, each compact must provide 

that the Congress may withdraw its consent every 5 years after the 

compact has taken effect.29 Apart from congressional action, states with 

privately managed disposal facilities could decide not to renew the 

disposal operators’ leases located on state-owned land. In addition, states 

that are concerned about the extent to which they would be able to 

restrict access to a commercial disposal facility within their borders might 

erect administrative barriers to developing such a facility. 

 2942 U.S.C. §2021d(d). In addition, under the terms of the statutes providing congressional 

consent to the compacts, the Congress may alter, amend, or repeal each statute providing 

consent after 10 years. Even without these provisions, the Congress could pass specific 

legislation withdrawing its consent at any time because a previous Congress cannot bind a 

future one. 

Repeal the Compact 

Legislation 
Appendix II: LLRW Legislative Options 

Page 42 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The capping of disposal volumes through mid-2008 at Barnwell and 

restrictions on access to only Atlantic Compact member states after this 

time have heightened interest in having DOE open its disposal facilities to 

at least some commercial LLRW. Access might be allowed on an interim 

basis, as requested in the past by California generators, or permanently. 

According to NRC officials, the Act established a compact system that has 

not provided reliable and cost-effective disposal options to generators of 

LLRW, forcing many of them to store their waste. 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. This approach would also be consistent 

with the management approaches taken by some European countries. 

Similar to the commercial disposal facilities in Richland and Barnwell that 

are operated by private companies on state-leased land, contractors 

manage and operate the two principal DOE disposal facilities on federal 

land.30 These two DOE disposal facilities in Nevada and Washington accept 

waste that exists on site, as well as from other department sites across the 

country. Each of these facilities has enormous capacity to accept LLRW. In 

1999, about 171 million cubic feet of space was available at these two sites, 

with DOE estimating that it would only use less than 30 million cubic feet 

for its cleanup waste. This estimate may even be lower given the 

increasing volume of DOE waste that is being sent to a commercial 

disposal facility. 

In the past, DOE disposal facilities have not been considered appropriate 

repositories for commercial waste, but commercial facilities were viewed 

as appropriate for receiving DOE waste. The federal government has 

encouraged the development of private LLRW disposal facilities since the 

early 1960s when the volumes of waste were increasing at the same time 

as the cost of disposal in the ocean. As an interim measure, the AEC 

allowed such waste to be disposed of at its own facilities at the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory and at the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory until commercial disposal facilities became available. As an 

incentive, in 1963, the AEC instructed its sites without disposal facilities to 

use commercial facilities for unclassified waste disposal. 

 30As discussed in appendix I, US Ecology operates the Richland commercial disposal 

facility on land that the federal government has leased to the State of Washington for 100 

years. 

Use DOE Disposal 

Facilities for Commercial 

Waste 
Appendix II: LLRW Legislative Options 

Page 43 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The proposed use of DOE facilities for commercial waste disposal would 

require resolution of a number of issues and may require legislation. These 

issues include whether DOE is presently authorized to accept 

commercially generated LLRW waste at its disposal sites. While previous 

AEC sites accepted commercial waste for a short time, it is not clear 

whether DOE currently has such authority. Another issue to be resolved is 

who (for example, generators, states, or DOE) would be responsible for 

paying the additional cost for disposing of commercial waste at DOE 

facilities and whether DOE would be allowed to keep any funds it 

receives. (Funds received by an agency normally must be paid into the 

U.S. Treasury, unless federal legislation authorizes the agency to retain the 

funds.) An additional issue concerns the potential licensing and regulation 

of a DOE facility that accepts commercial waste. The NRC and Agreement 

State regulations that govern commercial facilities do not apply to DOE 

disposal facilities or the wastes that are shipped to these facilities. 

Shifting waste to DOE facilities might also have the adverse effect of 

eliminating the financial viability of commercial disposal facilities and 

possibly putting DOE disposal facilities in competition with private 

facilities. However, one option might be to commercialize the DOE facility 

in Nevada by leasing at least some of the existing disposal site to the state, 

as is done in Washington for the commercial facility on DOE’s Hanford 

site. Nevertheless, given the significant excess capacity at DOE disposal 

facilities, there might not be any incentive to develop new commercial 

disposal facilities. Without any new disposal facilities, most waste would 

be shipped to Nevada and Washington, which have objected in the past to 

having to accept a disproportionate burden of LLRW disposal. 
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 

Page 44 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

To obtain information on changes in LLRW management conditions since 

our 1999 report, we interviewed regulators and disposal operators in states 

that have commercial disposal facilities or are considering opening one. 

We visited the Barnwell disposal facility and met with disposal site 

operators and state and Southeast Compact officials. In Texas, we met 

with state regulators and legislative staff. We interviewed DOE and NRC 

officials, and representatives of the nuclear power industry, the 

Department of Defense executive agent for LLRW, and several 

environmental groups. We also interviewed generators and waste 

processors in California, Texas, Maryland, and Tennessee that were 

suggested to us by various LLRW stakeholders in the course of this review. 

In addition, we met several times with members and officers from an 

independent nonprofit association of LLRW stakeholders, including 

obtaining feedback from this association on our preliminary findings 

during a March 2004 meeting. Finally, we reviewed applicable laws and 

regulations, including the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and the LLRW 

Policy Act, as amended. 

In gathering information on recent annual disposal volumes, we relied on 

data provided to us by the three commercial disposal facility operators 

because, in contrast to MIMS data, these data included DOE waste and 

they were current through 2003. We also determined that MIMS data had 

other shortcomings in its reliability that hindered its usefulness for other 

types of analysis, such as sources of waste by state and generator type. 

These and other concerns prompted us to more closely examine the 

department’s internal controls over this database. In doing so, we 

reviewed DOE documents and written and oral DOE responses to our 

questions about the structure, development, and management of these 

data. We also interviewed, and in some cases surveyed, users of MIMS 

regarding their assessment of the database’s reliability. While we did not 

independently verify the reliability of the data obtained from the disposal 

facility operators, we relied on these data for our analysis for the reasons 

stated and because they are the primary source data input into the 

national LLRW database. To gather available data and analysis on 

projected future disposal volumes, we interviewed a spectrum of LLRW 

stakeholders, including state regulators, disposal facility operators, waste 

processors, compact officials, and DOE officials. We also reviewed 

documents from the EPA, the National Research Council, and the 

International Atomic Energy Agency to obtain information relating to the 

current management of LLRW. 

To obtain information on any current or anticipated shortfalls in LLRW 

disposal availability, we interviewed state regulators, compact officials, 

Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix III: Scope and Methodology 

Page 45 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

and disposal site operators in South Carolina, Utah, and Washington, and 

reviewed the planning documents they provided to us. This review allowed 

us to estimate how much disposal capacity remains at each of the 

commercial disposal facilities given current disposal volumes accepted at 

each facility and other factors, such as licensing agreements and compact 

restrictions on disposal access to these facilities. We also reviewed 

relevant state legislation and other activities pertaining to the regulation of 

the disposal facilities in these states, monitored activities in Texas, which 

is accepting applications for a new disposal facility, and tracked the 

effects of LLRW disposal litigation between the Central Compact and 

Nebraska. 

To determine the effects, if any, on LLRW generators of any shortfalls or 

other difficulties associated with the disposal of this waste, we initially 

relied on the interviews that we had with representatives from 

biotechnology companies, environmental groups, hospitals, LLRW 

processors, and nuclear power plants. We also used our survey of compact 

and unaffiliated state officials to identify any documented adverse effects 

when generators had limited or no disposal option for their LLRW. This 

research led us to collaborate with the University of Texas Health Science 

Center in Houston on two nonscientific sample surveys of radiation safety 

officers and Health Physics Society members to identify any actual (since 

1999) or potential adverse effects on biomedical research and clinical 

practice resulting from costs or difficulties related to the storage and 

disposal of LLRW. The E-mail survey of radiation safety officers was 

conducted through the approximately 2,000 subscribers to the Radsafe 

Listserv. The approximately 6,000 members of the Health Physics Society, 

a scientific and professional organization whose members specialize in 

occupational and environmental radiation safety, were invited to 

participate in a survey through a notice in the Society’s monthly 

newsletter, Health Physics News. These surveys are considered 

nonscientific sample surveys of self-selected respondents from a 

nonprobabilistic sample of a largely unknown list of people, and there is 

overlap in affiliation between the samples. Our work was conducted 

between August 2003 and May 2004 in conformance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 46 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Energy 

Note: GAO comment 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 47 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Energy 

Page 48 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of Energy’s letter 

dated May 20, 2004. 

1. DOE disagreed with our recommendation to halt dissemination of 

information in its national LLRW database. DOE stated that our report 

did not adequately characterize the usefulness of MIMS, and that 

removal of the national LLRW database without an alternative would 

evoke criticism from states and regional compacts and would not 

fulfill the requirement in the Act to maintain such a database. Our 

recommendation did not call for removal of this database. Instead, we 

recommended halting dissemination of information in this database as 

long as the database has internal control weaknesses and 

shortcomings in its usefulness and reliability. This action would 

prevent user access to DOE’s online database. With regard to the 

usefulness of MIMS, our report noted that state and compact officials 

use MIMS for various purposes; however, the consensus among the 

officials we surveyed was that they could more effectively regulate and 

monitor LLRW if MIMS offered more comprehensive and reliable data. 

DOE did not address our concerns about internal control weaknesses 

and other shortcomings in the database. We stand by our 

recommendation to DOE because we believe that it is inappropriate to 

disseminate information that is known to be unreliable and 

incomplete. 

GAO Comment 
Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

Page 49 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 
Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

Page 50 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

See comment 4. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 3. 

See comment 2. 
Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

Page 51 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

See comment 3. 
Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

Page 52 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

The following are GAO’s comments on the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s letter dated May 25, 2004. 

1. We disagree with NRC’s suggestion that GAO commence a study to 

explore alternative options to the current LLRW management system. 

Given current disposal availability through mid-2008, and uncertainties 

about future disposal availability, we believe that such an evaluation 

by us is not needed at this time. 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. We disagree with NRC’s position that it would be outside its mission to 

report to the Congress on changes in disposal availability and the 

conditions of stored waste. As the federal agency with statutory 

responsibility to protect public health and safety and promote the 

common defense and security, NRC is responsible for overseeing the 

use, storage, and disposal of radioactive materials. NRC and 

Agreement State agencies already have license and inspection 

programs in place to monitor the safety and security of stored waste. 

NRC is the agency that developed the manifest that is the only 

mechanism available to track LLRW nationally. According to NRC, it 

has also begun to establish an interim database for sealed sources, 

some of which become LLRW, that may lead to establishing a National 

Source Tracking System. As such, we believe that NRC is the most 

appropriate agency to determine when the safety and security of 

stored LLRW are approaching a level of risk that might warrant 

congressional assessment of legislative options to ensure disposal 

availability for all LLRW, and to consider disposal costs as a factor 

behind storing LLRW even if disposal options are available. In our 

opinion, DOE is no longer the most appropriate agency to oversee 

states’ management of LLRW given that it has become the major user 

of commercial disposal facilities since establishment of the Act, as 

amended, and that the Congress eliminated its reporting 

responsibilities under the Act. 

3. We agree with NRC that there is no need for a congressional directive 

to require that NRC gather additional information necessary to monitor 

disposal availability and the safety and security of stored waste. In 

commenting on our draft report, NRC provided information on data 

gathering actions already in place at or planned by NRC to adequately 

ensure the safety and security of radioactive materials, including 

stored LLRW. Given these actions and the concerns of NRC with the 

regulatory cost of complying with our suggested actions, such as 

GAO Comments 
Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

Page 53 GAO-04-604 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

additional rulemaking, we eliminated our suggested congressional 

action in this regard. 

4. We are not in a position to independently judge if LLRW is or is not an 

attractive target for terrorists. We do point out in our report that one 

study found that a few radioisotopes of greatest security concern are 

classified as LLRW. More importantly, this cited study noted that while 

use of these materials in radiological dispersal devices, such as a dirty 

bomb, are not weapons of mass destruction, they could cause mass 

disruption, dislocation, and adverse financial consequences associated 

with decontamination and rebuilding. Interviews we conducted with 

generators of LLRW also identified other threats posed by the 

unintentional dispersal of radiological materials that could be caused 

by fires, floods, and earthquakes that have raised public concerns and 

the perception of risk. 

(360361) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs