Low-Level Radioactive Wastes

As the Cold War drew to a close, the Department of Energy (DOE) shifted its focus from producing nuclear weapons to cleaning up the contaminated facilities where it had produced them. During the 1990s, DOE spent hundreds of millions of dollars to treat, store, and dispose of radioactive wastes at more than 50 of its nuclear facilities around the country. Some of these wastes, including spent fuel and liquid wastes from chemically processing spent fuel, are highly radioactive. By volume, however, most of DOE's radioactive wastes are classified as "low-level wastes," that is, wastes contaminated with relatively small amounts of radioactivity. Some low-level wastes also contain components, such as lead, that are hazardous in their own right; these wastes are called "mixed wastes." DOE generates these low-level and mixed wastes as by-products of its research and nuclear weapons missions. Cleanup activities at contaminated facilities also produce low-level wastes in the form of contaminated soils, debris from dismantled buildings, and other materials. Many of these wastes can be disposed of on-site in designated facilities. However, during the next several decades, DOE expects to permanently dispose of about 2.1 million cubic meters of low-level and mixed wastes at six locations where it operates disposal facilities. This volume of waste would fill an area the size of a football field stacked to nearly one and a half times the height of the Empire Stare Building. This report reviews (1) the factors that influence DOE's decisions about the treatment, storage, and disposal of low-level and mixed wastes and (2) DOE's costs to treat, store, and dispose of these wastes and the cost-effectiveness of DOE's disposal decisions.

GAO noted that: (1) the limited availability of disposal alternatives is the principal factor influencing DOE's decisions about the treatment, storage, and disposal of its low-level and mixed wastes; (2) four of DOE's six disposal sites are restricted to disposing almost exclusively of their own wastes because of limits on their remaining disposal capacity and unfavorable site conditions; (3) the other two disposal sites have relatively dry climates and enough capacity to dispose of nearly all the low-level and mixed wastes generated at DOE's nuclear facilities nationwide; (4) some waste-generating sites have been able to use a commercial disposal facility, but the only facility that is readily available can accept only wastes that are very lightly contaminated with radioactivity; (5) on February 25, 2000, DOE adopted a new policy that will make the disposal facilities at the Nevada Test Site and the Hanford Site available to all of its waste-generating sites, for both low-level and mixed wastes; (6) however, there are roadblocks to fully implementing this policy--the states that host the disposal facilities may oppose increases in waste disposal at the sites, and DOE needs to obtain environmental permits from these states to dispose of mixed wastes; (7) from fiscal year (FY) 1997 through FY 1999, DOE spent over $700 million to prepare, treat, store, and dispose of its low-level and mixed wastes; (8) treatment and storage costs increased during this 3-year period while waste generators waited for DOE to issue its new policy making the Hanford and Nevada disposal facilities available to them; (9) when DOE fully implements this new policy, waste managers will have at least two disposal options and may be able to lower their waste disposal costs; (10) however, these managers currently lack complete information and guidance from the Department for making cost-effective disposal decisions; (11) the fees charged to waste generators by some DOE disposal facilities are not based on all of the facilities' costs to dispose of wastes; (12) moreover, the disposal facilities do not use uniform cost accounts in developing their respective fees; and (13) DOE has not developed full life-cycle costs for its six waste disposal facilities or established guidance to ensure that its waste managers base their disposal decisions on considerations of cost-effectiveness for DOE's entire program rather than on each site's annual budgetary interests.

Recommendations

Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.

Director: Team: Phone: