Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Status of Disposal Availability in the United States and Other Countries Gao ID: GAO-08-813T May 20, 2008Disposal of radioactive material continues to be highly controversial. To address part of the disposal problem, in 1980, Congress made the states responsible for disposing of most low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), and allowed them to form regional compacts and to restrict access to disposal facilities from noncompact states. LLRW is an inevitable by-product of nuclear power generation and includes debris and contaminated soils from the decommissioning and cleanup of nuclear facilities, as well as metal and other material exposed to radioactivity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ranks LLRW according to hazard exposure--classes A, B, C, and greater-than-class C (GTCC). The states are responsible for the first three classes, and the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for GTCC. Three facilities dispose of the nation's LLRW--in Utah, South Carolina, and Washington State. The testimony addresses (1) LLRW management in the United States and (2) LLRW management in other countries. It is substantially based on two GAO reports: a June 2004 report (GAO-04-604) and a March 2007, report (GAO-07-221) that examined these issues. To prepare this testimony, GAO relied on data from the two reports and updated information on current capacity for LLRW and access to disposal facilities.
As GAO reported in 2004, existing disposal facilities had adequate capacity for most LLRW and were accessible to waste generators (hereafter referred to as disposal availability) in the short term, but constraints on the disposal of certain types of LLRW warranted concern. Specifically, South Carolina had decided to restrict access to its disposal facility by mid-2008 for class B and C waste--the facility now accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide--to only waste generators in the three states of its compact. If there are no new disposal options for class B and C wastes after 2008, licensed users of radioactive materials can continue to minimize waste generation, process waste into safer forms, and store waste pending the development of additional disposal options. While NRC prefers that LLRW be disposed of, it allows on-site storage as long as the waste remains safe and secure. In contrast, disposal availability for domestic class A waste is not a problem in the short or longer term. In 2004, GAO reported that the Utah disposal facility--which accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide--could accept such waste for 20 years or more under its current license based on anticipated class A waste volumes. Since 2005, the volume of class A waste disposed of has declined by two-thirds primarily because DOE completed several large cleanup projects, extending the capacity for an additional 13 years, for a total of 33 years of remaining disposal capacity. However, the June 2004 analysis, and the updated analysis, were based on the generation of LLRW only in the United States and did not consider the impact on domestic disposal capacity of importing foreign countries' LLRW. Ten of the 18 countries surveyed for GAO's March 2007 report have disposal options for class A, B and most of C waste, and 6 other countries have plans to build such facilities. Only 3 countries indicated that they have a disposal option for some class C and GTCC waste; however, almost all countries that do not provide disposal for LLRW have centralized storage facilities for this waste. Only Italy reported that it had no disposal or central storage facilities for its LLRW, although it plans to develop a disposal site for this waste that will include waste from its decommissioned nuclear power plants and from other nuclear processing facilities. Italy initially expected this disposal site to be operational by 2010, but local governments' resistance to the location of this disposal site has delayed this date. The March 2007 report also identified a number of LLRW management approaches used in other countries that may provide lessons to improve the management of U.S. radioactive waste. These approaches include the use of comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases and the development of a national radioactive waste management plan. Such a plan would specify a single entity responsible for coordinating radioactive waste management and include strategies to address all types of radioactive waste. GAO had recommended that NRC and DOE evaluate and report to the Congress on the usefulness of these approaches. While the agencies considered these approaches, they expressed particular concerns about the significant resources required to develop and implement a national inventory and management plan for LLRW.
GAO-08-813T, Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Status of Disposal Availability in the United States and Other Countries
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-813T
entitled 'Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Status of Disposal Availability
in the United States and Other Countries' which was released on May 20,
2008.
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 Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Committee
on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, May 20, 2008:
Low-Level Radioactive Waste:
Status of Disposal Availability in the United States and Other
Countries:
Statement of Gene Aloise, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-08-813T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-813T, testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy
and Air Quality, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Disposal of radioactive material continues to be highly controversial.
To address part of the disposal problem, in 1980, Congress made the
states responsible for disposing of most low-level radioactive waste
(LLRW), and allowed them to form regional compacts and to restrict
access to disposal facilities from noncompact states. LLRW is an
inevitable by-product of nuclear power generation and includes debris
and contaminated soils from the decommissioning and cleanup of nuclear
facilities, as well as metal and other material exposed to
radioactivity. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ranks LLRW
according to hazard exposure”classes A, B, C, and greater-than-class C
(GTCC). The states are responsible for the first three classes, and the
Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for GTCC. Three facilities
dispose of the nation‘s LLRW”in Utah, South Carolina, and Washington
State.
The testimony addresses (1) LLRW management in the United States and
(2) LLRW management in other countries. It is substantially based on
two GAO reports: a June 2004 report (GAO-04-604) and a March 2007,
report (GAO-07-221) that examined these issues. To prepare this
testimony, GAO relied on data from the two reports and updated
information on current capacity for LLRW and access to disposal
facilities.
What GAO Found:
As GAO reported in 2004, existing disposal facilities had adequate
capacity for most LLRW and were accessible to waste generators
(hereafter referred to as disposal availability) in the short term, but
constraints on the disposal of certain types of LLRW warranted concern.
Specifically, South Carolina had decided to restrict access to its
disposal facility by mid-2008 for class B and C waste”the facility now
accepts about 99 percent of this waste generated nationwide”to only
waste generators in the three states of its compact. If there are no
new disposal options for class B and C wastes after 2008, licensed
users of radioactive materials can continue to minimize waste
generation, process waste into safer forms, and store waste pending the
development of additional disposal options. While NRC prefers that LLRW
be disposed of, it allows on-site storage as long as the waste remains
safe and secure. In contrast, disposal availability for domestic class
A waste is not a problem in the short or longer term. In 2004, GAO
reported that the Utah disposal facility”which accepts about 99 percent
of this waste generated nationwide”could accept such waste for 20 years
or more under its current license based on anticipated class A waste
volumes. Since 2005, the volume of class A waste disposed of has
declined by two-thirds primarily because DOE completed several large
cleanup projects, extending the capacity for an additional 13 years,
for a total of 33 years of remaining disposal capacity. However, the
June 2004 analysis, and the updated analysis, were based on the
generation of LLRW only in the United States and did not consider the
impact on domestic disposal capacity of importing foreign countries‘
LLRW.
Ten of the 18 countries surveyed for GAO‘s March 2007 report have
disposal options for class A, B and most of C waste, and 6 other
countries have plans to build such facilities. Only 3 countries
indicated that they have a disposal option for some class C and GTCC
waste; however, almost all countries that do not provide disposal for
LLRW have centralized storage facilities for this waste. Only Italy
reported that it had no disposal or central storage facilities for its
LLRW, although it plans to develop a disposal site for this waste that
will include waste from its decommissioned nuclear power plants and
from other nuclear processing facilities. Italy initially expected this
disposal site to be operational by 2010, but local governments‘
resistance to the location of this disposal site has delayed this date.
The March 2007 report also identified a number of LLRW management
approaches used in other countries that may provide lessons to improve
the management of U.S. radioactive waste. These approaches include the
use of comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory databases and
the development of a national radioactive waste management plan. Such a
plan would specify a single entity responsible for coordinating
radioactive waste management and include strategies to address all
types of radioactive waste. GAO had recommended that NRC and DOE
evaluate and report to the Congress on the usefulness of these
approaches. While the agencies considered these approaches, they
expressed particular concerns about the significant resources required
to develop and implement a national inventory and management plan for
LLRW.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-813T]. For more
information, contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to discuss our past work on the
management of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) as the Subcommittee
considers H.R. 5632, which would prohibit the importation of certain
LLRW into the United States. LLRW is an inevitable byproduct of nuclear
power generation and of government, industrial, academic, and medical
uses of radioisotopes. It includes items such as rags, paper, liquid,
glass, metal components, resins, filters, and protective clothing that
have been exposed to radioactivity or have been contaminated with
radioactive material. LLRW also includes debris, rubble, and
contaminated soils from the decommissioning and cleanup of nuclear
facilities. Almost 30 years ago federal legislation addressed the need
to dispose of LLRW, but management of LLRW continues to be a concern.
Under the LLRW Policy Act of 1980, as amended (the act), each state is
responsible for providing for the disposal of LLRW generated within the
state, either by itself or in cooperation with other states. States are
not responsible for waste produced by the Department of Energy (DOE) or
the nuclear propulsion component of the U.S. Navy. The aim of the act
was to provide for the safe and effective management of LLRW disposal
capacity on a regional basis. As an incentive for states to manage
waste on a regional basis, the Congress consented to the formation of
interstate agreements, known as compacts, and granted compact member
states the authority to exclude LLRW from other compacts or
unaffiliated states.[Footnote 1]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is responsible for licensing
LLRW disposal sites and has divided the wastes covered by the act into
categories of increasing levels of hazard exposure, beginning with
class A--the least hazardous category--followed by class B and class
C.[Footnote 2] There is also a fourth category, known as greater-than-
class-C (GTCC) waste, which DOE is responsible for disposing of. NRC
has relinquished to 34 states--called "Agreement States"--portions of
its authority to license and regulate the use and disposal of
radioactive materials. Although NRC has not licensed any disposal
facilities, the Agreement States have licensed three commercial LLRW
disposal facilities: one in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions,
accepts almost all of the nation's class A waste; one in Barnwell,
South Carolina, also operated by EnergySolutions, accepts almost all of
the nation's class B and class C waste; and one in Richland,
Washington, operated by US Ecology, accepts class A, B, and C wastes
from the 11 states of the Rocky Mountain and Northwest LLRW compacts.
Currently, there is no disposal facility for GTCC waste, although DOE
is currently studying the feasibility of various disposal options.
Disposal of radioactive material continues to be highly controversial.
We found that the impetus to develop new disposal facilities has been
dampened by many factors, including decreases in disposal volumes,
disposal availability, rising costs of developing a new facility, and
public and political resistance in states designated to host these
facilities. The United States is a large generator of LLRW because it
has 104 nuclear power reactors and thousands of radioactive material
licensees. NRC has reported that future disposal availability and the
costs of disposal under the current system remains highly uncertain and
waste generators need predictability and stability in the national
disposal system. Disposal availability for LLRW is also a concern in
some foreign countries. Specifically, 29 other countries generate
electricity from 331 nuclear power reactors, and many others generate
LLRW from industrial, academic, and medical uses of radioactive
material. Like the United States, these countries face LLRW disposal
challenges.
Our testimony today is based on two reports: (1) our June 2004 report,
which examined the adequacy of LLRW disposal availability for class A,
B, and C wastes,[Footnote 3] and (2) our March 2007 report, which
examined the approaches foreign countries use to manage their LLRW.
[Footnote 4]
To prepare this testimony we relied on data from our two reports and
updated information on domestic LLRW disposal availability and volumes.
Estimates of disposal volumes and capacity came from the operators that
we interviewed for our June 2004 report. We updated the information in
a LLRW database through discussions with a cognizant DOE official.
Information on disposal availability for foreign countries came
directly from survey information that we used in preparing the 2007.
Information on Italy came from survey data and supplemental reports. We
conducted the work in the prior reports we used in preparing this
testimony and the work we conducted in updating LLRW disposal
information in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
In summary, we found the following:
As we reported in June 2004, existing disposal facilities had adequate
capacity for most LLRW and were accessible to waste generators (hereby
referred to as disposal availability) in the short term, but
constraints on the disposal of class B and C wastes warranted concern.
Specifically, South Carolina had decided to close the Barnwell disposal
facility to noncompact states by mid-2008. When this closure occurs
later this year, Barnwell, which currently accepts about 99 percent of
the nation's class B and C waste, will be available only to waste
generated in three states. If after 2008 there are no new disposal
options for class B and C wastes, licensed users of radioactive
materials can continue to minimize waste generation, process waste into
safer forms, and store waste pending the development of additional
disposal options. While NRC prefers the disposal of LLRW, it allows on-
site storage as long as the waste remains safe and secure. In contrast,
disposal availability for domestic class A waste is not a problem in
the short or longer term. We reported in June 2004 that the Clive,
Utah, disposal facility, which accepts about 99 percent of the nation's
class A waste, could accept such waste for 20 years or more under its
current license based on then-projected class A disposal volumes. Since
2005, the volume of class A waste disposed of has declined by two-
thirds primarily because DOE has completed several large cleanup
projects. This has extended by 13 years the time when this facility
will be expected to reach its capacity. It is important to note,
however, that our June 2004 analysis and our updated analysis of the
availability of disposal capacity for class A, B, and C wastes was
based on the generation of LLRW only in the United States and did not
consider the impact on domestic capacity of importing foreign
countries' LLRW.
Ten of the 18 countries we surveyed for our March 2007 report have
disposal options for LLRW similar to U.S. class A and B waste and most
of C waste, and 6 other countries have plans to build such facilities.
Only 3 countries indicated that they have a disposal option for LLRW
similar to greater-than-class C waste. However, almost all of the
countries that do not provide disposal for LLRW provide centralized
storage facilities for this waste. Only Italy reported that it had no
disposal or central storage facilities for its LLRW, although it does
have plans to develop a disposal site for radioactive waste from its
decommissioned nuclear power plants and from other nuclear processing
facilities. Italy initially expected this disposal site to be
operational by 2010, but local governments' resistance to the location
of this disposal site has delayed this date. Our March 2007 report also
identified a number of LLRW management approaches used in other
countries that may provide lessons to improve the management of U.S.
radioactive waste. These approaches include the use of comprehensive
national radioactive waste inventory databases and the development of a
national radioactive waste management plan. Such a plan would specify a
single entity responsible for coordinating radioactive waste management
and include strategies to address all types of radioactive waste. We
recommended that NRC and DOE evaluate and report to the Congress on the
usefulness of these approaches. While the agencies considered these
approaches, they expressed particular concerns about the significant
resources required to develop and implement a national inventory and
management plan for LLRW.
Background:
The disposal of LLRW is the end of the radioactive material lifecycle
that spans production, use, processing, interim storage, and disposal.
The nuclear utility industry generates the bulk of this LLRW through
the normal operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, and
through the decommissioning of these plants. Other LLRW is generated
from medical, industrial, agricultural, and research applications.
Common uses of radioactive material are in radiotherapy, radiography,
smoke detectors, irradiation and sterilization of food and materials,
measuring devices, and illumination of emergency exit signs. In the
course of working with these radioactive materials, other material,
such as protective clothing and gloves, pipes, filters, and concrete,
that come in contact with them will become contaminated and therefore
need to be disposed of as LLRW.
In the 1960s, the Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency to
DOE, began to encourage the development of commercial LLRW disposal
facilities to accommodate the increased volume of commercial waste that
was being generated. Six such disposal facilities were licensed, two of
which, the Richland facility, licensed in 1965, and the Barnwell
facility, licensed in 1969, remain today. Each of these facilities is
located within the boundaries of or adjacent to a much larger site
owned by DOE. The third facility, in Clive, Utah, operated by
EnergySolutions (formerly known as Envirocare of Utah), was originally
licensed by the state of Utah in 1988 to only accept naturally
occurring radioactive waste. In 1991, Utah amended the facility's
license to permit the disposal of some LLRW, and the Northwest Compact
agreed to allow the facility to accept these wastes from noncompact
states. By 2001, the facility was allowed to accept all types of class
A waste.
The United States Currently Has Available Disposal Capacity for Most
Domestically Produced LLRW:
At this time, sufficient available disposal capacity exists for almost
all LLRW. However, fast-approaching constraints on the availability of
disposal capacity for class B and class C wastes could adversely affect
the disposal of many states' LLRW. Specifically, beginning on June 30,
2008, waste generators in 36 states will be precluded from using the
Barnwell disposal facility for their class B and class C LLRW. That
facility currently accepts about 99 percent of the nation's class B and
class C commercial LLRW. Although the Barnwell and Richland facilities
have more than sufficient capacity to serve waste generators from the
14 states that are members of the facilities' respective compacts until
at least 2050, the remaining 36 states will have no disposal options
for their class B and class C LLRW.
Although waste generators in these 36 states will no longer have access
to Barnwell, they can continue to minimize waste generation, process
waste into safer forms, and store waste pending the development of
additional disposal options. While NRC prefers the disposal of LLRW, it
allows on-site storage as long as the waste remains safe and secure.
Since September 11, 2001, both the public's concern with, and its
perception of, risk associated with radioactive release, including that
from stored LLRW, have increased. However, should an immediate and
serious threat come from any specific location of stored waste, NRC has
the authority under the act to override any compact restrictions and
allow shipment of the waste to a regional or other nonfederal disposal
facility under narrowly defined conditions. Waste minimization
techniques and storage can alleviate the need for disposal capacity,
but they can be costly. For example, in June 2004 we reported that one
university built a $12 million combined hazardous and radioactive waste
management facility. Two-thirds of this facility is devoted to the
processing and temporary storage of class A waste.
Additional disposal capacity for the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 cubic
feet of class B and class C LLRW disposed of annually at Barnwell may
become available with the opening of a new disposal facility in Texas.
This facility has received a draft license and appears to be on
schedule to begin operations in 2010. Although the facility may accept
some DOE cleanup waste, there is presently no indication that it will
be made available to all waste generators beyond the two states that
are members of the Texas Compact (Texas and Vermont).
In contrast, available disposal capacity for the nation's class A waste
does not appear to be a problem in either the short or long term. Our
June 2004 report noted that EnergySolutions' Clive facility had
sufficient disposal capacity, based upon then-projected disposal
volumes, to accept class A waste for at least 20 years under its
current license. This facility currently accepts about 99 percent of
the nation's class A LLRW. Since our report was issued, domestic class
A waste has declined from about 15.5 million cubic feet in 2005 to
about 5 million cubic feet in 2007. This decline is primarily
attributed to DOE's completion of several cleanup projects. DOE waste
constituted about 50 percent of the total waste accepted by
EnergySolutions in 2007. This reduction in projected class A disposal
volumes will extend the amount of time the Clive facility can accept
class A waste before exhausting its capacity. According to the disposal
operator, capacity for this facility has been extended another 13
years, to 33 years of capacity.
It is important to note, however, that our June 2004 analysis of
available LLRW disposal capacity considered only domestically produced
LLRW. We did not consider the impact of imported LLRW on available
class A, B, and C disposal capacity at Clive, Barnwell, and Richland.
Although disposal capacity at the time of our June 2004 report appeared
adequate using then-projected waste disposal volumes, the impact of
adding additional waste from overseas waste generators is unclear.
Most Foreign Countries Either Have Available LLRW Disposal Capacity or
Plan to Develop It:
While none of the foreign countries we surveyed for our March 2007
report indicated that they have disposal options for all of their LLRW,
almost all either had disposal capacity for their lower-activity LLRW
or central storage facilities for their higher-activity LLRW, pending
the availability of disposal capacity.[Footnote 5] Specifically, we
surveyed 18 foreign countries that previously had or currently have
operating nuclear power plants or research reactors. Ten of the 18
countries reported having available disposal capacity for their lower-
activity LLRW and 6 other countries have plans to build such
facilities. Only 3 countries indicated that they have a disposal option
for some higher-activity LLRW. Many countries that lack disposal
capacity for LLRW provide centralized storage facilities to relieve
waste generators of the need to store LLRW on-site. Specifically, 7 of
the 8 countries without disposal facilities for lower-activity LLRW had
centralized storage facilities. Eleven of the 15 countries without
disposal facilities for at least some higher-activity LLRW provide
central storage facilities for this material.
Of the 18 countries we surveyed, only Italy indicated that it lacked
disposal availability for both lower-and higher-activity LLRW and
central storage facilities for this waste. As reported by Italy to the
international Nuclear Energy Agency, in 1999, the government began to
develop a strategy for managing the liabilities resulting from the
country's past national nuclear activities. The strategy established a
new national company to shut down all of Italy's nuclear power plants
and to promptly decommission them. It also created a national agency
that would establish and operate a disposal site for radioactive waste.
A subsequent government decree in 2001 prompted an acceleration of the
process to select a disposal site, with the site to begin operations in
2010. However, the Italian government has more recently reported it has
encountered substantial difficulties establishing a disposal site
because local governments have rejected potential site locations. In
total, Italy will have an estimated 1.1 million cubic feet of lower-
activity LLRW that will result from decommissioning its nuclear
facilities in addition to the 829,000 cubic feet of this waste already
in storage.
Our March 2007 report identified several management approaches used in
foreign countries that, if adopted in the United States, could improve
the management of radioactive waste. These approaches included, among
other things,
* using a comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory of all
types of radioactive waste by volume, location, and waste generator;
* providing disposition options for all types of LLRW or providing
central storage options for higher-radioactivity LLRW if disposal
options are unavailable; and:
* developing financial assurance requirements for all waste generators
to reduce government disposition costs.
We also identified another management approach used in most countries-
-national radioactive waste management plans--that also might provide
lessons for managing U.S. radioactive waste. Currently, the United
States does not have a national radioactive waste management plan and
does not have a single federal agency or other organization responsible
for coordinating LLRW stakeholder groups to develop such a plan. Such a
plan for the United States could integrate the various radioactive
waste management programs at the federal and state levels into a single
source document.
Our March 2007 report recommended that DOE and NRC evaluate and report
to the Congress on the usefulness of adopting the LLRW management
approaches used in foreign countries and developing a U.S. radioactive
waste management plan. Although both agencies generally agreed with our
recommendations, NRC, on behalf of itself and DOE, subsequently
rejected two approaches that our March 2007 report discussed.
Specifically, NRC believes that the development of national LLRW
inventories and a national waste management plan would be of limited
use in the United States. In a March 2008 letter to GAO on the actions
NRC has taken in response to GAO's recommendations, NRC stated that the
approach used in the United States is fundamentally different from
other countries. In particular, NRC argued that, because responsibility
for LLRW disposal is placed with the states, the federal government's
role in developing options for managing and/or disposing of LLRW is
limited. NRC also expressed concern about the usefulness and
significant resources required to develop and implement national
inventories and management plans.
We continue to believe comprehensive inventories and a national plan
would be useful. A comprehensive national radioactive waste inventory
would allow LLRW stakeholders to forecast waste volumes and to plan for
future disposal capacity requirements. Moreover, a national radioactive
waste management plan could assist those interested in radioactive
waste management to identify waste quantities and locations, plan for
future storage and disposal development, identify research and
development opportunities, and assess the need for regulatory or
legislative actions. For example, there are no national contingency
plans, other than allowing LLRW storage at waste generator sites, to
address the impending closure of the Barnwell facility to class B and
class C LLRW from noncompact states. The availability of a national
plan and periodic reporting on waste conditions might also provide the
Congress and the public with a more accessible means for monitoring the
management of radioactive waste and provide a mechanism to build
greater public trust in the management of these wastes in the United
States.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Committee may have
at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further
information about this testimony, please contact Gene Aloise at (202)
512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Major contributors to this statement were
Daniel Feehan (Assistant Director), Thomas Laetz, Lesley Rinner, and
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
[End of testimony]
Footnotes:
[1] There are 10 compacts: the Appalachian, Atlantic, Central, Central
Midwest, Northwest, Midwest, Rocky Mountain, Southeast, Southwestern,
and Texas Compacts. Together, these 10 compacts encompass 42 states.
Generators of LLRW located in a compact or in unaffiliated states that
do not have their own disposal facility can contract with a disposal
facility in another compact if the other compact allows them to do so.
[2] The classification of waste is determined by the type of
radionuclide (e.g., americium-241) and the concentration of
radioactivity (often measured in curies per gram).
[3] GAO, Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal Availability Adequate in
the Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-604]
(Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2004).
[4] GAO, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management: Approaches Used by
Foreign Countries May Provide Useful Lessons for Managing U.S.
Radioactive Waste, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-221] (Washington, D.C.:
March 21, 2007).
[5] In general, U.S. class A, B, and most of class C waste falls into
the international category of short-lived low-and intermediate-level
radioactive waste (lower-activity LLRW), and the remaining 25 percent
of class C waste and all GTCC waste falls into the long-lived low-and
intermediate-level radioactive waste category (higher-activity LLRW).
[End of section]
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, D.C. 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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
