Uranium Enrichment
Extension of Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to Cover Projected Cleanup Costs Gao ID: GAO-08-277T November 15, 2007Cleaning up the nation's three uranium enrichment plants will cost billions of dollars and could span decades. These plants--located near Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Paducah, Ky.; and Portsmouth, Ohio--are contaminated with radioactive and hazardous materials. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (Fund) to pay for plant cleanup. Fund revenues come from an assessment on domestic utilities and federal government appropriations. In 2004, GAO reported on the Fund's sufficiency to cover authorized activities. GAO recommended that Congress consider reauthorizing the Fund for 3 more years, to 2010, and require the Department of Energy (DOE) to reassess the Fund's sufficiency before it expired to determine if further extensions were needed. Because decisions not yet made by DOE could affect the cost of cleanup and the Fund's sufficiency, GAO also recommended that DOE develop decontamination and decommissioning plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants that would identify the most probable time frames and costs for completing the cleanup work. This testimony is based on GAO's 2004 report. It summarizes the extent to which the Fund may be sufficient to cover authorized activities and the status of DOE's progress in developing decontamination and decommissioning plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants.
GAO's analysis showed that the Fund will be insufficient to cover all authorized activities. Using DOE's estimates for the cleanup costs at the three plants and current and likely revenue projections, GAO developed a number of simulation models that factored in annual cost and revenue projections and uncertainties surrounding inflation rates, costs, revenues, and the timing of the final cleanup work at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants. Specifically, GAO's baseline model demonstrated that by 2044, the most likely date for completing all cleanup activities at the plants, cleanup costs will have exceeded revenues by $3.8 billion to $6.2 billion (in 2007 dollars). Importantly, GAO found that the Fund would be insufficient irrespective of which estimates were used or what time frames were assumed. DOE has not yet issued plans for the decontamination and decommissioning of the Paducah and Portsmouth plants as GAO recommended. According to DOE officials, the department is developing a report to Congress that will contain updated information for both plants. DOE did not make that information available to GAO, however, and hence GAO was unable to assess how any new schedule or cost estimates may affect the Fund's sufficiency. Until DOE issues plans that provide the most probable time frames and costs for completing decontamination and decommissioning at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants, it is not possible to more precisely determine the total funding needed to cover the authorized cleanup activities.
GAO-08-277T, Uranium Enrichment: Extension of Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to Cover Projected Cleanup Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-277T
entitled 'Uranium Enrichment: Extension of Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund May Needed to Cover Projected Cleanup Costs' which
was released on November 15, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Thursday, November 15, 2007:
Uranium Enrichment:
Extension of Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to
Cover Projected Cleanup Costs:
Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-08-277T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-277T, a testimony before the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Cleaning up the nation‘s three uranium enrichment plants will cost
billions of dollars and could span decades. These plants”located near
Oak Ridge, Tenn; Paducah, Ky; and Portsmouth, Ohio”are contaminated
with radioactive and hazardous materials. In 1992, the Energy Policy
Act created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
Fund (Fund) to pay for plant cleanup. Fund revenues come from an
assessment on domestic utilities and federal government appropriations.
In 2004, GAO reported on the Fund‘s sufficiency to cover authorized
activities. GAO recommended that Congress consider reauthorizing the
Fund for 3 more years, to 2010, and require the Department of Energy
(DOE) to reassess the Fund‘s sufficiency before it expired to determine
if further extensions were needed. Because decisions not yet made by
DOE could affect the cost of cleanup and the Fund‘s sufficiency, GAO
also recommended that DOE develop decontamination and decommissioning
plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants that would identify the
most probable time frames and costs for completing the cleanup work.
This testimony is based on GAO‘s 2004 report. It summarizes the extent
to which the Fund may be sufficient to cover authorized activities and
the status of DOE‘s progress in developing decontamination and
decommissioning plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants.
Figure: Cleanup Costs Outweigh Fund Revenues:
This figure is a photograph of a balance. The left side, which is
higher, Fund revenue, lists government appropriations + utility
assessments + Interest earned. The right side, which is lower, Fund
Costs, lists Uranium and thorium reimbursements + Cleanup activities:
Decontamination and decommissioning, Remedial actions, Waste
management, Surveillance and maintenance.
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
What GAO Found:
GAO‘s analysis showed that the Fund will be insufficient to cover all
authorized activities. Using DOE‘s estimates for the cleanup costs at
the three plants and current and likely revenue projections, GAO
developed a number of simulation models that factored in annual cost
and revenue projections and uncertainties surrounding inflation rates,
costs, revenues, and the timing of the final cleanup work at the
Paducah and Portsmouth plants. Specifically, GAO‘s baseline model
demonstrated that by 2044, the most likely date for completing all
cleanup activities at the plants, cleanup costs will have exceeded
revenues by $3.8 billion to $6.2 billion (in 2007 dollars).
Importantly, GAO found that the Fund would be insufficient irrespective
of which estimates were used or what time frames were assumed.
DOE has not yet issued plans for the decontamination and
decommissioning of the Paducah and Portsmouth plants as GAO
recommended. According to DOE officials, the department is developing a
report to Congress that will contain updated information for both
plants. DOE did not make that information available to GAO, however,
and hence GAO was unable to assess how any new schedule or cost
estimates may affect the Fund‘s sufficiency. Until DOE issues plans
that provide the most probable time frames and costs for completing
decontamination and decommissioning at the Paducah and Portsmouth
plants, it is not possible to more precisely determine the total
funding needed to cover the authorized cleanup activities.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-277T]. For more information, contact
Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the sufficiency of
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (Fund)
as you consider its reauthorization. As you know, the 1992 Energy
Policy Act, as amended,[Footnote 1] established the Fund and authorized
contributions for 15 years (ending in 2007) to be made by federal
government appropriations and payments from domestic utility companies.
The Fund is the government's principal source of funding for the
decontamination and decommissioning of the Department of Energy's (DOE)
three uranium enrichment plants, located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. These plants, which encompass
more than 30 million square feet of floor space, miles of
interconnecting pipes, and thousands of acres of land, are contaminated
with radioactive and hazardous materials. The cleanup of these plants-
-the responsibility of DOE's Office of Environmental Management--will
cost billions of dollars and could span several decades. Cleanup
activities include assessing, treating, and disposing of the
contamination found at the plants and the decontamination and
decommissioning of inactive facilities. DOE conducts its cleanup
activities under the requirements of several federal environmental laws
and compliance agreements with relevant regulatory authorities,
including the Environmental Protection Agency and state regulatory
agencies.
In 2004, we reported on actions DOE had taken to reduce the cleanup
costs the Fund is authorized to support and the extent to which the
Fund is sufficient to cover authorized activities.[Footnote 2] Because
we found that the Fund would likely be insufficient, we recommended
that Congress consider reauthorizing the Fund for an additional 3
years, to 2010, and require DOE to reassess the Fund's sufficiency
before the 2007 expiration date to determine if extensions beyond 2010
would be needed. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty regarding the
Fund's sufficiency, we recommended that the Secretary of Energy develop
decontamination and decommissioning plans for the Paducah and
Portsmouth plants that would identify the most probable time frames and
costs for completing the cleanup work. My testimony today (1) includes
findings from our 2004 report, which examined the extent to which the
Fund was sufficient to cover authorized activities, and (2) provides an
update on DOE's progress in developing decontamination and
decommissioning plans at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants.
In preparing our 2004 report, we obtained DOE's estimates for cleanup
and other key costs at the three plants, and current and likely revenue
projections. We assessed the reliability of these data and determined
that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We
used the data to develop a number of simulation models, which factored
in cost and revenue projections on an annual basis, as well as
uncertainties surrounding inflation rates, interest rates, the costs
and revenues, and the timing of the final decontamination and
decommissioning work at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants. In addition,
to prepare for this testimony, we reviewed DOE's status reports
developed in response to our 2004 report and interviewed DOE
headquarters officials to determine DOE's progress to date in
developing decontamination and decommissioning plans at Paducah and
Portsmouth. We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
In summary,
* The Fund will be insufficient to cover all of its authorized
activities. Specifically, our baseline model showed that by 2044, the
most likely date for completing all cleanup activities at the plants,
cleanup costs will have exceeded revenues by $3.8 billion to $6.2
billion (in 2007 dollars). Irrespective of which model we used, we
found that the Fund would be insufficient. Each of the alternative
models--(1) accelerated time frames, (2) deferred time frames, and (3)
baseline time frames with additional revenues from government
contributions as authorized under current law--demonstrated that the
cleanup costs would exceed revenues. We recommended that Congress
consider reauthorizing the Fund for an additional 3 years, to 2010, and
require DOE to reassess the Fund's sufficiency before the expiration
date to determine if extensions beyond 2010 would be needed.
* DOE has not yet issued plans for the decontamination and
decommissioning of the Paducah and Portsmouth plants as GAO
recommended. According to DOE officials, the department is now in the
process of finalizing a report that contains new schedule and cost
information for both plants and addresses the sufficiency of the Fund.
However, DOE did not make that information available to GAO and
therefore, we were unable to assess how any new schedule or cost
estimates may affect the Fund's sufficiency. Until DOE issues plans
that provide the most probable time frames and costs for completing
decontamination and decommissioning at the Paducah and Portsmouth
plants, it is not possible to more precisely determine the total
funding needed to cover the authorized cleanup activities.
Background:
The federal government has enriched uranium for use by commercial
nuclear power plants and for defense-related purposes for more than 40
years at three plants, located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah,
Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio (see fig. 1). The Oak Ridge plant, known
as East Tennessee Technology Park, is located on 1,500 acres of land;
the oldest of the three plants, it has not produced enriched uranium
since 1985. The Paducah plant, located on about 3,500 acres, continues
to enrich uranium for commercial nuclear power plants under a lease to
a private company, the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The
Portsmouth plant, a 3,700-acre site, ceased enriching uranium in May
2001 because of reductions in the commercial market for enriched
uranium. Later that year, the plant was placed on cold standby (an
inactive status that maintains the plant in a usable condition), so
that production at the facility could be restarted in the event of a
significant disruption in the nation's supply of enriched uranium. USEC
was awarded the contract to maintain the plant in cold standby, a
condition that continues today.[Footnote 3] Yet because of newer, more
efficient enrichment technologies and the globalization of the uranium
enrichment market, all three uranium enrichment plants have become
largely obsolete. Therefore, DOE now faces the task of decontaminating,
decommissioning, and undertaking other remedial actions[Footnote 4] at
these large and complex plants, which are contaminated with hazardous
industrial, chemical, nuclear, and radiological materials.
Figure 1: Location of the Three Uranium Enrichment Plants:
This figure is a combination of a portion of a map and three
photographs of Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Paducah,
Kentucky.
[See PDF for image]
Source: DOE.
[End of figure]
In 1991, at the request of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
GAO analyzed the adequacy of a $500 million annual deposit into a fund
to pay for the cost of cleanup at DOE's three uranium enrichment
plants.[Footnote 5] We reported that a $500 million deposit indexed to
inflation would likely be adequate, assuming that deposits would be
made annually into the fund as long as cleanup costs were expected to
be incurred, which, at the time of our study, was until 2040.
Additionally, in a related report, we concluded that the
decommissioning costs at the plants should be paid by the beneficiaries
of the services provided by DOE--in this case, DOE's commercial and
governmental customers.[Footnote 6]
In 1992, the Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which established
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay
for the costs of decontaminating and decommissioning the nation's three
uranium enrichment plants. The Energy Policy Act also authorized the
Fund to pay remedial action costs associated with the plants'
operation, to the extent that funds were available, and to reimburse
uranium and thorium licensees for the portion of their cleanup costs
associated with the sale of these materials to the federal government.
The act authorized the collection of revenues for 15 years, ending in
2007, to pay for the authorized cleanup costs. Revenues to the Fund are
derived from (1) an assessment, of up to $150 million annually, on
domestic utilities that used the enriched uranium produced by DOE's
plants for nuclear power generation[Footnote 7] and (2) federal
government appropriations amounting to the difference between the
authorized funding under the Energy Policy Act and the assessment on
utilities.[Footnote 8] Congress specified that any unused balances in
the Fund were to be invested in Treasury securities and any interest
earned made available to pay for activities covered under the Fund.
DOE's Office of Environmental Management is responsible for managing
the Fund and plant cleanup activities, which, through fiscal year 2003,
were mostly carried out by DOE contractor Bechtel Jacobs. The
department's Oak Ridge Operations Office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, had
historically provided day-to-day Fund management and oversight of
cleanup activities at all three plants. In October 2003, however, DOE
established a new office in Lexington, Kentucky, to directly manage the
cleanup activities at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants. The Oak Ridge
Operations Office continues to manage the Fund and the cleanup
activities at the Oak Ridge plant.
Currently, the Fund is used to pay for the following activities:
* Reimbursements to uranium and thorium licensees. The Energy Policy
Act provides that the Fund be used to reimburse licensees of active
uranium and thorium processing sites for the portion of their
decontamination and decommissioning activities, reclamation efforts,
and other cleanup costs attributable to the uranium and thorium they
sold to the federal government.[Footnote 9] From fiscal year 1994, when
the Fund began incurring costs, through fiscal year 2003, $447 million
was used from the Fund for uranium and thorium reimbursements (in 2004
dollars).
* Cleanup activities at the uranium enrichment plants.[Footnote 10]
Cleanup activities at the plants include remedial actions, such as
assessing and treating groundwater or soil contamination; waste
management activities, such as disposing of contaminated materials; the
surveillance and maintenance of the plants, such as providing security
and making general repairs to keep the plants in a safe condition; the
decontamination and decommissioning of inactive facilities by either
cleaning them up so they can be reused or demolishing them; and other
activities, such as covering litigation costs at the three plants and
supporting site-specific advisory boards. From fiscal year 1994 through
fiscal year 2003, a total of $2.7 billion from the Fund was used for
these cleanup activities (in 2004 dollars).
At Projected Costs and Revenues, the Fund Will Be Insufficient to
Complete Cleanup at the Three Plants:
Under a variety of models using DOE's projected costs and revenues, the
Fund will be insufficient to cover all of its authorized activities.
Using DOE's projections that 2044 would be the most likely date for
completion of cleanup at the plants, we estimated that cleanup costs
would exceed Fund revenues by $3.8 billion to $6.2 billion (in 2007
dollars).[Footnote 11] Because DOE had not determined when
decontamination and decommissioning work would begin at the Paducah and
Portsmouth plants, and because federal contributions to the Fund have
been less than the authorized amount, we developed several alternative
models to assess the effects of different assumptions on the Fund's
sufficiency. Specifically, we developed the following models:
* Baseline model. This model was developed in consultation with DOE and
its contractor officials about what the most likely cleanup time frames
would be and used cost estimates assuming that cleanup at all plants
would be completed by 2044.
* Accelerated model. Because DOE had not determined when the final
decontamination and decommissioning would begin at its Paducah and
Portsmouth plants, we developed the accelerated model under the
assumption that cleanup work could be completed faster than under the
baseline model, given unconstrained funding. DOE and its contractor
officials provided additional cost estimates, where Paducah's final
work would begin in 2010 and be completed by 2024 and Portsmouth's
final decontamination and decommissioning work would begin in 2007 and
be completed by 2024.
* Deferred model. This model was developed under the assumption that,
given current funding constraints, it may not be realistic for two
major decontamination and decommissioning projects to be done
concurrently. Thus, deferred time frames were determined by DOE,
assuming that all work would be completed at the Portsmouth plant first
and then initiated at the Paducah plant. For the deferred model,
Portsmouth's final decontamination and decommissioning work was
estimated to be completed from 2010 to 2037 and Paducah's from 2038 to
2052.
* Revenue-added model. This model was developed to assess the effect of
the government's meeting its total authorized annual contributions on
the balance of the Fund, which by the start of fiscal year 2004, was
$707 million less than authorized under the Energy Policy Act. For the
revenue-added model, we used baseline time frames but assumed that
government contributions to the Fund would continue annually at the
2004 authorized level until all government contributions as authorized
by law had been met, which would occur in fiscal year 2009.
* Revenue-added-plus-interest model. For this model, we built on the
revenue-added model to include the effect of forgone interest that the
Fund could have earned had the government contributed the full
authorized amount. We assumed that these additional payments would be
made to the Fund in the same amounts as the 2004 annual authorized
amount and extended payments through fiscal year 2010.
Irrespective of which model we used, we found that the Fund would be
insufficient to cover the projected cleanup costs at the uranium
enrichment plants (see table 1). At best, assuming no additional
funding is provided beyond the 2007 authorized amount, Fund costs could
outweigh revenues by $3.8 billion (in 2007 dollars). Even with current
authorized amounts extended out through fiscal year 2010, the Fund
could still be insufficient by close to $0.46 billion (in 2007
dollars).
Table 1: Fund Balance at Completion of All Cleanup under Different
Model Scenarios:
Dollars in billions.
Completion date (fiscal year);
Baseline model: 2044;
Accelerated model: 2024;
Deferred model: 2052;
Revenue-added model: 2044;
Revenue-added- plus-interest model: 2044.
Constant 2007 dollars;
Baseline model: -$6.2 to -$3.8 (-$5.3);
Accelerated model: -$5.7 to -$4.4 (-$5.0);
Deferred model: -$6.8 to - $4.4 (-$5.7);
Revenue-added model: -$5.2 to -$2.0 (-$3.9);
Revenue- added-plus-interest model: -$4.6 to -$0.46 (-$3.0).
Current dollars;
Baseline model: -$18.5 to -$7.6 (-$12.5);
Accelerated model: -$9.8 to -$5.7 (-$7.6);
Deferred model: -$26.4 to -$8.8 (- $16.7);
Revenue-added model: -$15.1 to -$4.3 (-$9.3);
Revenue-added- plus-interest model: -$13.3 to -$1.0 (-$7.1).
Present-value 2007 dollars[A];
Baseline model: -$3.4 to -$0.84 (-$1.9);
Accelerated model: -$4.2 to -$2.0 (-$3.0);
Deferred model: -$3.4 to - $0.69 (-$1.6);
Revenue-added model: -$2.8 to -$0.42 (-$1.4);
Revenue- added-plus-interest model: -$2.5 to -$0.098 (-$1.1).
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
Note: Fund balances given as range, with mean in parentheses.
[A] Because of the difference in completion dates, a comparison of the
Fund balances in constant 2007 dollars would not be meaningful. To make
comparison of the various models possible, we estimated the present
value of the Fund's balance in 2007 dollars. Because present-value
analysis reflects the time value of money--that costs are worth more if
they are incurred sooner and worth less if they occur in the future--
the present value under the deferral model declines more than in the
other options. In reality, however, the net effect would depend on many
other factors. If, for example, deferral would add substantially to
such costs as safeguarding and security or costs associated with
increased health risks, then the reduction due to adjusting for the
time value of money could be more than offset by increases in other
costs.
[End of table]
Although our analysis was able to capture several uncertainties
potentially affecting the Fund--including interest rates, inflation
rates, cost and revenue variances, and the timing of decontamination
and decommissioning--additional uncertainties exist that we could not
capture. These uncertainties included possible changes to the scope of
the cleanup; whether the Fund would be required to pay for additional
activities, such as long-term water monitoring once the plants were
closed; and the extent of potential future litigation costs that the
Fund would have to support. For example, a risk analysis completed by
DOE in 2004 for the Paducah plant indicated that changes in the scope
of cleanup could increase cleanup costs by more than $3 billion and
extend the time frame for cleanup to more than 30 years past the
original scheduled date of 2019.[Footnote 12] In addition, when they
developed their cleanup cost estimates, DOE officials assumed that the
costs of long-term stewardship activities--such as groundwater
monitoring, which may continue after all necessary cleanup costs have
been completed--would be covered by a separate funding source. DOE
officials acknowledged, however, that if another funding source were
not available, they may be required to use resources from the Fund.
Uncertainty Over the Extent of the Fund's Insufficiency Remains Because
DOE Has Yet to Issue Plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth Plants:
Uncertainty over the extent of the Fund's insufficiency remains because
DOE has not issued plans that identify the most probable time frames
and costs for the decontamination and decommissioning of the Paducah
and Portsmouth plants. DOE was required to develop a report to Congress
containing such information, but because DOE was significantly revising
its cost estimates, it determined the report would not be accurate and
did not finalize it.[Footnote 13] According to DOE officials, it is now
in the process of finalizing a report that contains new schedule and
cost information for both plants and addresses the sufficiency of the
Fund.[Footnote 14] This report was due to Congress in October 2007 but
has yet to be issued by DOE. Because the report has not been finalized,
DOE officials were unwilling to provide us with updated information on
current schedule and cost estimates. As a result, we are unable to
assess how any new information may affect the Fund's sufficiency. Until
DOE resolves uncertainties surrounding the plants' cleanup, including
when cleanup activities are expected to both begin and end, it is not
possible to more precisely determine the total funding needed to cover
the authorized cleanup activities. If, however, closure and cleanup
time frames extend past the originally projected schedules at the
plants, then the total costs the Fund is authorized to support may
increase, particularly costs for maintenance, safety, and security
activities and other fixed costs that must be maintained until cleanup
work at the plants is complete.
In closing, we believe that an extension to the Fund may be necessary
to cover cleanup costs at the nation's three uranium enrichment plants.
The information currently available on the projected costs and revenues
authorized by the Fund suggests that it may be insufficient by up to
several billion dollars. DOE appears to be taking steps to develop new,
detailed time frames and cost estimates for the decontamination and
decommissioning of its uranium enrichment plants. However, until this
detailed information is made available, we cannot assess how DOE's
updated time frames and cost estimates may affect the Fund's
sufficiency. As a result, we believe that DOE should finalize plans for
the Paducah and Portsmouth plants so that it can better determine the
extent to which Fund extensions may be needed. Unless the Fund is
extended beyond its current expiration in 2007, cleanup activities that
could not be paid for from the Fund because of a shortfall may have to
be financed entirely by the federal government and could add an
additional fiscal burden at a time when our government is facing
already significant long-term fiscal challenges.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have
at this time.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-
3841 or nazzaror@gao.gov. Sherry L. McDonald, Assistant Director; Ellen
W. Chu, Alyssa M. Hundrup, Mehrzad Nadji, and Barbara Timmerman made
key contributions to this statement.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] All further references to the Energy Policy Act refer to the Energy
Policy Act, as amended.
[2] GAO, Uranium Enrichment: Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
Is Insufficient to Cover Cleanup Costs, GAO-04-692 (Washington, D.C.:
July 2, 2004).
[3] USEC was also responsible for uranium enrichment before operations
ceased and it has begun construction on a new centrifuge uranium
enrichment plant at this site.
[4] Remedial actions refer to environmental cleanup activities directed
at eliminating or reducing contaminant sources and contaminated soil
and groundwater.
[5] GAO, Uranium Enrichment: Analysis of Decontamination and
Decommissioning Scenarios, GAO/RCED-92-77BR (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15,
1991).
[6] GAO, Comments on Proposed Legislation to Restructure DOE's Uranium
Enrichment Program, GAO/T-RCED-92-14 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 1991).
[7] This assessment is based on a given utility's share of the total
enriched uranium purchased from DOE, including enriched uranium
purchased for defense purposes.
[8] The following revenue amounts are authorized: $480 million for
fiscal years 1992-1998; $488.3 million for fiscal years 1999-2001; and
$518.2 million for fiscal years 2002-2007. Both domestic utility
assessments and government appropriations are to be adjusted annually
for increases in the consumer price index.
[9] The Energy Policy Act authorizes reimbursements to uranium
licensees not to exceed $350 million and reimbursements to the thorium
licensee not to exceed $365 million for the portion of their cleanup
costs associated with the sale of these materials to the federal
government. The remaining unused authorized amounts are adjusted
annually based upon the consumer price index.
[10] Cleanup activities are conducted under the requirements of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA); the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, as amended (CERCLA); and compliance agreements with regulatory
authorities, which include the Environmental Protection Agency and
state regulatory agencies in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
[11] In our 2004 report, we reported the projected costs in 2004
dollars. For this testimony, we converted the figures to 2007 dollars.
[12] This end date does not include final decontamination and
decommissioning of the plant but only the major remedial actions
planned at the site.
[13] According to the Energy Policy Act, the Secretary of DOE shall
provide a report to Congress at least once every 3 years on progress
made under title XI of the act.
[14] According to the Energy Policy Act, the fifth report to Congress
was to contain recommendations by the Secretary for the reauthorization
of the program and Fund under title XI.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, DC 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, DC 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, DC 20548:
