Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal Availability Adequate in the Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls
Published: 2004-06-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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. DOE and NRC were given responsibilities  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.
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. 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.)
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. 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  and May 2004. (See app. III for further information on the scope and  methodology of our review.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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  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.
section_title: Since 1999 LLRW Disposal Availability and Federal Oversight Have Changed
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
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, terminated  effective May 2000. 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.  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. 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  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.
section_title: Annual LLRW Disposal Volumes Have Increased, but Future Volumes Are Uncertain
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: LLRW Disposal Volumes Increased Significantly since 1999
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Concerns about Usefulness and Reliability of National LLRW Database
paragraphs: 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. 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  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. 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 operator- supplied 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  several types of information, including sources of waste coming from  states, compacts, and generator types.
section_title: Uncertainties Surround Projecting Future LLRW Disposal Volumes
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: LLRW Disposal Availability Appears Adequate Until Mid- 2008
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: Any LLRW Disposal Shortfall After Mid- 2008 Unlikely to Pose Immediate Problem
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: LLRW Minimization and Storage Can Lessen Effects of any Disposal Shortfall
paragraphs: 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. 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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: LLRW Minimization and Storage Can Be Costly
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: No Other Widespread Effects Detected of Shortfall in LLRW Disposal Availability
paragraphs: 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. 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  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. 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. 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Overview of Existing Commercial LLRW Disposal Facilities
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Barnwell Disposal Facility
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Compact Affiliation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: State Regulators
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Disposal Operator
paragraphs: 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 Chem- 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.
section_title: Current Conditions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Envirocare Disposal Facility
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Compact Affiliation
paragraphs: 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.
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.  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. 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.
section_title: State Regulators
paragraphs: 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  licensed for mixed waste, and in 2001 when Utah approved an amendment  for Envirocare to accept all types of class A waste.
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.
section_title: Disposal Operator
paragraphs: 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. 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,  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.
section_title: Current Conditions
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: Richland Disposal Facility
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Compact Affiliation
paragraphs: 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 accelerator- produced radioactive material, which is not addressed by the compact.  The Richland facility accepted nonradioactive hazardous and mixed  wastes until 1985.
section_title: State Regulators
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Disposal Operator
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Current Conditions
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix II: LLRW Legislative Options
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Retain the Compact Approach
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Repeal the Compact Legislation
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: Use DOE Disposal Facilities for Commercial Waste
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix III: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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,  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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy
paragraphs: The following is GAO’s comment on the Department of Energy’s letter  dated May 20, 2004.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comment
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
paragraphs: The following are GAO’s comments on the Nuclear Regulatory  Commission’s letter dated May 25, 2004.
subsections: section_title: GAO Comments
paragraphs: 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  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.