Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Status of Disposal Availability in the United States and Other Countries
Published: 2008-05-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Disposal of radioactive material continues to be highly controversial. To address part of the disposal problem, in 1980, Congress made the states responsible for disposing of most low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), and allowed them to form regional compacts and to restrict access to disposal facilities from noncompact states. LLRW is an inevitable by-product of nuclear power generation and includes debris and contaminated soils from the decommissioning and cleanup of nuclear facilities, as well as metal and other material exposed to radioactivity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ranks LLRW according to hazard exposure--classes A, B, C, and greater-than-class C (GTCC). The states are responsible for the first three classes, and the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for GTCC. Three facilities dispose of the nation's LLRW--in Utah, South Carolina, and Washington State. The testimony addresses (1) LLRW management in the United States and (2) LLRW management in other countries. It is substantially based on two GAO reports: a June 2004 report (GAO-04-604) and a March 2007, report (GAO-07-221) that examined these issues. To prepare this testimony, GAO relied on data from the two reports and updated information on current capacity for LLRW and access to disposal facilities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As GAO reported in 2004, existing disposal facilities had adequate capacity for most LLRW and were accessible to waste generators (hereafter referred to as disposal availability) in the short term, but constraints on the disposal of certain types of LLRW warranted concern. Specifically, South Carolina had decided to restrict access to its disposal facility by mid-2008 for class B and C waste--the facility now accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide--to only waste generators in the three states of its compact. If there are no new disposal options for class B and C wastes after 2008, 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 that LLRW be disposed of, it allows on-site storage as long as the waste remains safe and secure. In contrast, disposal availability for domestic class A waste is not a problem in the short or longer term. In 2004, GAO reported that the Utah disposal facility--which accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide--could accept such waste for 20 years or more under its current license based on anticipated class A waste volumes. Since 2005, the volume of class A waste disposed of has declined by two-thirds primarily because DOE completed several large cleanup projects, extending the capacity for an additional 13 years, for a total of 33 years of remaining disposal capacity. However, the June 2004 analysis, and the updated analysis, were based on the generation of LLRW only in the United States and did not consider the impact on domestic disposal capacity of importing foreign countries' LLRW. Ten of the 18 countries surveyed for GAO's March 2007 report have disposal options for class A, B and most of C waste, and 6 other countries have plans to build such facilities. Only 3 countries indicated that they have a disposal option for some class C and GTCC waste; however, almost all countries that do not provide disposal for LLRW have centralized storage facilities for this waste. Only Italy reported that it had no disposal or central storage facilities for its LLRW, although it plans to develop a disposal site for this waste that will include waste from its decommissioned nuclear power plants and from other nuclear processing facilities. Italy initially expected this disposal site to be operational by 2010, but local governments' resistance to the location of this disposal site has delayed this date. The March 2007 report also identified a number of LLRW management approaches used in other countries that may provide lessons to improve the management of U.S. radioactive waste. These approaches include the use of comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases and the development of a national radioactive waste management plan. Such a plan would specify a single entity responsible for coordinating radioactive waste management and include strategies to address all types of radioactive waste. GAO had recommended that NRC and DOE evaluate and report to the Congress on the usefulness of these approaches. While the agencies considered these approaches, they expressed particular concerns about the significant resources required to develop and implement a national inventory and management plan for LLRW.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here today to discuss our past work on the  management of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) as the Subcommittee  considers H.R. 5632, which would prohibit the importation of certain  LLRW into the United States. LLRW is an inevitable byproduct of nuclear  power generation and of government, industrial, academic, and medical  uses of radioisotopes. It includes items such as rags, paper, liquid, glass,  metal components, resins, filters, and protective clothing that have been  exposed to radioactivity or have been contaminated with radioactive  material. LLRW also includes debris, rubble, and contaminated soils from  the decommissioning and cleanup of nuclear facilities. Almost 30 years  ago federal legislation addressed the need to dispose of LLRW, but  management of LLRW continues to be a concern. Under the LLRW Policy  Act of 1980, as amended (the act), each state is responsible for providing  for the disposal of LLRW generated within the state, either by itself or in  cooperation with other states. States are not responsible for waste  produced by the Department of Energy (DOE) or the nuclear propulsion  component of the U.S. Navy. The aim of the act was to provide for the safe  and effective management of LLRW disposal capacity on a regional basis.  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.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for licensing  LLRW disposal sites and has divided the wastes covered by the act into  categories of increasing levels of hazard exposure, beginning with class  A—the least hazardous category—followed by class B and class C. There  is also a fourth category, known as greater-than-class-C (GTCC) waste,  which DOE is responsible for disposing of. NRC has relinquished to 34  states—called “Agreement States”—portions of its authority to license and  regulate the use and disposal of radioactive materials. Although NRC has  not licensed any disposal facilities, the Agreement States have licensed  three commercial LLRW disposal facilities: one in Clive, Utah, operated by  EnergySolutions, accepts almost all of the nation’s class A waste; one in  Barnwell, South Carolina, also operated by EnergySolutions, accepts  almost all of the nation’s class B and class C waste; and one in Richland,  Washington, operated by US Ecology, accepts class A, B, and C wastes  from the 11 states of the Rocky Mountain and Northwest LLRW compacts.  Currently, there is no disposal facility for GTCC waste, although DOE is  currently studying the feasibility of various disposal options.
Disposal of radioactive material continues to be highly controversial. We  found that the impetus to develop new disposal facilities has been  dampened by many factors, including decreases in disposal volumes,  disposal availability, rising costs of developing a new facility, and public  and political resistance in states designated to host these facilities. The  United States is a large generator of LLRW because it has 104 nuclear  power reactors and thousands of radioactive material licensees. NRC has  reported that future disposal availability and the costs of disposal under  the current system remains highly uncertain and waste generators need  predictability and stability in the national disposal system. Disposal  availability for LLRW is also a concern in some foreign countries.  Specifically, 29 other countries generate electricity from 331 nuclear  power reactors, and many others generate LLRW from industrial,  academic, and medical uses of radioactive material. Like the United States,  these countries face LLRW disposal challenges.
Our testimony today is based on two reports: (1) our June 2004 report,  which examined the adequacy of LLRW disposal availability for class A, B,  and C wastes, and (2) our March 2007 report, which examined the  approaches foreign countries use to manage their LLRW.
To prepare this testimony we relied on data from our two reports and  updated information on domestic LLRW disposal availability and volumes.  Estimates of disposal volumes and capacity came from the operators that  we interviewed for our June 2004 report. We updated the information in a  LLRW database through discussions with a cognizant DOE official.  Information on disposal availability for foreign countries came directly  from survey information that we used in preparing the 2007. Information  on Italy came from survey data and supplemental reports. We conducted  the work in the prior reports we used in preparing this testimony and the  work we conducted in updating LLRW disposal information in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
In summary, we found the following:  As we reported in June 2004, existing disposal facilities had adequate  capacity for most LLRW and were accessible to waste generators (hereby  referred to as disposal availability) in the short term, but constraints on  the disposal of class B and C wastes warranted concern. Specifically,  South Carolina had decided to close the Barnwell disposal facility to  noncompact states by mid-2008. When this closure occurs later this year,  Barnwell, which currently accepts about 99 percent of the nation’s class B  and C waste, will be available only to waste generated in three states. 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, it allows on-site storage as long as the waste remains  safe and secure. In contrast, disposal availability for domestic class A  waste is not a problem in the short or longer term. We reported in June  2004 that the Clive, Utah, disposal facility, which accepts about 99 percent  of the nation’s class A waste, could accept such waste for 20 years or more  under its current license based on then-projected class A disposal  volumes. Since 2005, the volume of class A waste disposed of has declined  by two-thirds primarily because DOE has completed several large cleanup  projects. This has extended by 13 years the time when this facility will be  expected to reach its capacity. It is important to note, however, that our  June 2004 analysis and our updated analysis of the availability of disposal  capacity for class A, B, and C wastes was based on the generation of LLRW  only in the United States and did not consider the impact on domestic  capacity of importing foreign countries’ LLRW.
Ten of the 18 countries we surveyed for our March 2007 report have  disposal options for LLRW similar to U.S. class A and B waste and most of  C waste, and 6 other countries have plans to build such facilities. Only 3  countries indicated that they have a disposal option for LLRW similar to  greater-than-class C waste. However, almost all of the countries that do  not provide disposal for LLRW provide centralized storage facilities for  this waste. Only Italy reported that it had no disposal or central storage  facilities for its LLRW, although it does have plans to develop a disposal  site for radioactive waste from its decommissioned nuclear power plants  and from other nuclear processing facilities. Italy initially expected this  disposal site to be operational by 2010, but local governments’ resistance  to the location of this disposal site has delayed this date. Our March 2007  report also identified a number of LLRW management approaches used in  other countries that may provide lessons to improve the management of  U.S. radioactive waste. These approaches include the use of  comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases and the  development of a national radioactive waste management plan. Such a  plan would specify a single entity responsible for coordinating radioactive  waste management and include strategies to address all types of  radioactive waste. We recommended that NRC and DOE evaluate and  report to the Congress on the usefulness of these approaches. While the  agencies considered these approaches, they expressed particular concerns  about the significant resources required to develop and implement a  national inventory and management plan for LLRW.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The disposal of LLRW is the end of the radioactive material lifecycle that  spans production, use, processing, interim storage, and disposal. The  nuclear utility industry generates the bulk of this LLRW through the  normal operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, and through  the decommissioning of these plants. Other LLRW is generated from  medical, industrial, agricultural, and research applications. Common uses  of radioactive material are in radiotherapy, radiography, smoke detectors,  irradiation and sterilization of food and materials, measuring devices, and  illumination of emergency exit signs. In the course of working with these  radioactive materials, other material, such as protective clothing and  gloves, pipes, filters, and concrete, that come in contact with them will  become contaminated and therefore need to be disposed of as LLRW.
In the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency to  DOE, began to encourage the development of commercial LLRW disposal  facilities to accommodate the increased volume of commercial waste that  was being generated. Six such disposal facilities were licensed, two of  which, the Richland facility, licensed in 1965, and the Barnwell facility,  licensed in 1969, remain today. Each of these facilities is located within the  boundaries of or adjacent to a much larger site owned by DOE. The third  facility, in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions (formerly known as  Envirocare of Utah), was originally licensed by the state of Utah in 1988 to  only accept naturally occurring radioactive waste. In 1991, Utah amended  the facility’s license to permit the disposal of some LLRW, and the  Northwest Compact agreed to allow the facility to accept these wastes  from noncompact states. By 2001, the facility was allowed to accept all  types of class A waste.
section_title: The United States Currently Has Available Disposal Capacity for Most Domestically Produced LLRW
paragraphs: At this time, sufficient available disposal capacity exists for almost all  LLRW. However, fast-approaching constraints on the availability of  disposal capacity for class B and class C wastes could adversely affect the  disposal of many states’ LLRW. Specifically, beginning on June 30, 2008,  waste generators in 36 states will be precluded from using the Barnwell  disposal facility for their class B and class C LLRW. That facility currently  accepts about 99 percent of the nation’s class B and class C commercial  LLRW. Although the Barnwell and Richland facilities have more than  sufficient capacity to serve waste generators from the 14 states that are  members of the facilities’ respective compacts until at least 2050, the  remaining 36 states will have no disposal options for their class B and  class C LLRW.
Although waste generators in these 36 states will no longer have access to  Barnwell, they 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, it allows on- site storage 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 come 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. Waste minimization techniques and storage can alleviate the  need for disposal capacity, but they can be costly. For example, in June  2004 we reported that one university built a $12 million combined  hazardous and radioactive waste management facility. Two-thirds of this  facility is devoted to the processing and temporary storage of class A  waste.
Additional disposal capacity for the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 cubic feet  of class B and class C LLRW disposed of annually at Barnwell may become  available with the opening of a new disposal facility in Texas. This facility  has received a draft license and appears to be on schedule to begin  operations in 2010. Although the facility may accept some DOE cleanup  waste, there is presently no indication that it will be made available to all  waste generators beyond the two states that are members of the Texas  Compact (Texas and Vermont).
In contrast, available disposal capacity for the nation’s class A waste does  not appear to be a problem in either the short or long term. Our June 2004  report noted that EnergySolutions’ Clive facility had sufficient disposal  capacity, based upon then-projected disposal volumes, to accept class A  waste for at least 20 years under its current license. This facility currently  accepts about 99 percent of the nation’s class A LLRW. Since our report  was issued, domestic class A waste has declined from about 15.5 million  cubic feet in 2005 to about 5 million cubic feet in 2007. This decline is  primarily attributed to DOE’s completion of several cleanup projects. DOE  waste constituted about 50 percent of the total waste accepted by  EnergySolutions in 2007. This reduction in projected class A disposal  volumes will extend the amount of time the Clive facility can accept class  A waste before exhausting its capacity. According to the disposal  operator, capacity for this facility has been extended another 13 years, to  33 years of capacity.
It is important to note, however, that our June 2004 analysis of available  LLRW disposal capacity considered only domestically produced LLRW. We  did not consider the impact of imported LLRW on available class A, B, and  C disposal capacity at Clive, Barnwell, and Richland. Although disposal  capacity at the time of our June 2004 report appeared adequate using then- projected waste disposal volumes, the impact of adding additional waste  from overseas waste generators is unclear.
section_title: Most Foreign Countries Either Have Available LLRW Disposal Capacity or Plan to Develop It
paragraphs: While none of the foreign countries we surveyed for our March 2007 report  indicated that they have disposal options for all of their LLRW, almost all  either had disposal capacity for their lower-activity LLRW or central  storage facilities for their higher-activity LLRW, pending the availability of  disposal capacity. Specifically, we surveyed 18 foreign countries that  previously had or currently have operating nuclear power plants or  research reactors. Ten of the 18 countries reported having available  disposal capacity for their lower-activity LLRW and 6 other countries have  plans to build such facilities. Only 3 countries indicated that they have a  disposal option for some higher-activity LLRW. Many countries that lack  disposal capacity for LLRW provide centralized storage facilities to relieve  waste generators of the need to store LLRW on-site. Specifically, 7 of the 8  countries without disposal facilities for lower-activity LLRW had  centralized storage facilities. Eleven of the 15 countries without disposal  facilities for at least some higher-activity LLRW provide central storage  facilities for this material.
Of the 18 countries we surveyed, only Italy indicated that it lacked  disposal availability for both lower- and higher-activity LLRW and central  storage facilities for this waste. As reported by Italy to the international  Nuclear Energy Agency, in 1999, the government began to develop a  strategy for managing the liabilities resulting from the country’s past  national nuclear activities. The strategy established a new national  company to shut down all of Italy’s nuclear power plants and to promptly  decommission them. It also created a national agency that would establish  and operate a disposal site for radioactive waste. A subsequent  government decree in 2001 prompted an acceleration of the process to  select a disposal site, with the site to begin operations in 2010. However,  the Italian government has more recently reported it has encountered  substantial difficulties establishing a disposal site because local  governments have rejected potential site locations. In total, Italy will have  an estimated 1.1 million cubic feet of lower-activity LLRW that will result  from decommissioning its nuclear facilities in addition to the 829,000 cubic  feet of this waste already in storage.
Our March 2007 report identified several management approaches used in  foreign countries that, if adopted in the United States, could improve the  management of radioactive waste. These approaches included, among  other things,    using a comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory of all types of  radioactive waste by volume, location, and waste generator;   providing disposition options for all types of LLRW or providing central  storage options for higher-radioactivity LLRW if disposal options are  unavailable; and    developing financial assurance requirements for all waste generators to  reduce government disposition costs.
We also identified another management approach used in most  countries—national radioactive waste management plans—that also might  provide lessons for managing U.S. radioactive waste. Currently, the United  States does not have a national radioactive waste management plan and  does not have a single federal agency or other organization responsible for  coordinating LLRW stakeholder groups to develop such a plan. Such a  plan for the United States could integrate the various radioactive waste  management programs at the federal and state levels into a single source  document.
Our March 2007 report recommended that DOE and NRC evaluate and  report to the Congress on the usefulness of adopting the LLRW  management approaches used in foreign countries and developing a U.S.  radioactive waste management plan. Although both agencies generally  agreed with our recommendations, NRC, on behalf of itself and DOE,  subsequently rejected two approaches that our March 2007 report  discussed. Specifically, NRC believes that the development of national  LLRW inventories and a national waste management plan would be of  limited use in the United States. In a March 2008 letter to GAO on the  actions NRC has taken in response to GAO’s recommendations, NRC  stated that the approach used in the United States is fundamentally  different from other countries. In particular, NRC argued that, because  responsibility for LLRW disposal is placed with the states, the federal  government’s role in developing options for managing and/or disposing of  LLRW is limited. NRC also expressed concern about the usefulness and  significant resources required to develop and implement national  inventories and management plans.
We continue to believe comprehensive inventories and a national plan  would be useful. A comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory  would allow LLRW stakeholders to forecast waste volumes and to plan for  future disposal capacity requirements. Moreover, a national radioactive  waste management plan could assist those interested in radioactive waste  management to identify waste quantities and locations, plan for future  storage and disposal development, identify research and development  opportunities, and assess the need for regulatory or legislative actions. For  example, there are no national contingency plans, other than allowing  LLRW storage at waste generator sites, to address the impending closure  of the Barnwell facility to class B and class C LLRW from noncompact  states. The availability of a national plan and periodic reporting on waste  conditions might also provide the Congress and the public with a more  accessible means for monitoring the management of radioactive waste and  provide a mechanism to build greater public trust in the management of  these wastes in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have  at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further  information about this testimony, please contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512- 3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Major contributors to this statement were Daniel  Feehan (Assistant Director), Thomas Laetz, Lesley Rinner, and Carol  Herrnstadt Shulman.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product 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.