Nuclear Waste: Plans for Addressing Most Buried Transuranic
Wastes Are Not Final, and Preliminary Cost Estimates Will Likely
Increase (22-JUN-07, GAO-07-761).
Since the 1940s, the development of nuclear weapons technologies
has generated transuranic wastes--materials contaminated by
certain man-made radioactive elements. These wastes can remain
dangerous for thousands of years. Until 1970, the Department of
Energy's (DOE) predecessors buried these wastes in shallow pits
and trenches. Today, state officials and communities near DOE's
major disposal sites have expressed concerns that such wastes
might contaminate important ground and surface water resources.
GAO was asked to (1) determine the legal requirements and
policies affecting DOE's efforts to address transuranic wastes
buried before 1970, (2) determine what DOE is doing to address
sites where these transuranic wastes are buried, and (3) assess
the reliability of DOE's estimated costs to address these sites.
We met with federal and state officials at five DOE sites
containing buried transuranic wastes, reviewed environmental laws
and guidance, and obtained buried waste cleanup cost estimates
from each site. In commenting on this report, DOE generally
agreed with our findings, and provided some clarifying comments.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-761
ACCNO: A71228
TITLE: Nuclear Waste: Plans for Addressing Most Buried
Transuranic Wastes Are Not Final, and Preliminary Cost Estimates
Will Likely Increase
DATE: 06/22/2007
SUBJECT: Cost analysis
Environmental cleanups
Environmental monitoring
Federal regulations
Hazardous wastes
Laboratories
Nuclear waste disposal
Radioactive waste disposal
Waste management
Cost estimates
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-761
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Cleanup Agreements Require DOE to Address Sites Where Transu
* [4]DOE Is Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes in Place at Two
* [5]Cleanup Agreements at Oak Ridge and Savannah River Call for
* [6]DOE Is Still Developing Cleanup Plans at the Three Locations
* [7]Hanford Site
* [8]Idaho National Laboratory
* [9]Los Alamos National Laboratory
* [10]Estimated Costs to Address Waste Disposal Areas in Which Tra
* [11]DOE Has Developed Cost Estimates to Address Geographic Areas
* [12]Cost Estimates Are Preliminary and Likely Understate the Act
* [13]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [14]Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
* [15]Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy
* [16]Appendix III: Contact Information and Staff Acknowledgments
* [17]GAO Contacts
* [18]Staff Acknowledgments
* [19]Order by Mail or Phone
Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
June 2007
NUCLEAR WASTE
Plans for Addressing Most Buried Transuranic Wastes Are Not Final, and
Preliminary Cost Estimates Will Likely Increase
GAO-07-761
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 5
Cleanup Agreements Require DOE to Address Sites Where Transuranic Wastes
Are Buried 7
DOE Is Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes in Place at Two Sites but Is
Still Developing Cleanup Plans at the Largest Waste Sites 11
Estimated Costs to Address Waste Disposal Areas in Which Transuranic
Wastes Are Buried Will Likely Increase 19
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 23
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 25
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Energy 27
Appendix III Contact Information and Staff Acknowledgments 28
Tables
Table 1: Interagency Agreement Schedule for Addressing DOE Sites
Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes 11
Table 2: Summary of DOE Estimated Lifecycle Costs to Address Disposal
Areas Containing Buried Transuranic and Other Hazardous Wastes 20
Figures
Figure 1: Typical Disposal of Transuranic and Other Wastes in Unlined
Trench at the Hanford Site Prior to 1970 8
Figure 2. Example of an Engineered Barrier Constructed over a Burial
Ground Containing Radioactive or Hazardous Wastes 13
Figure 3: Aerial View of an Engineered Barrier under Construction at Oak
Ridge 15
Abbreviations
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
June 22, 2007
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky
Chairman
The Honorable David L. Hobson
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Since the 1940s, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors have
operated a nationwide complex of facilities used to research, design, and
manufacture nuclear weapons and related technologies. While these
activities are important for national defense, they have left a legacy of
radioactive and other hazardous wastes that have contaminated or could
contaminate the environment. Among them is a large quantity of transuranic
wastes--typically, discarded rags, tools, equipment, soils, or other solid
materials that have been contaminated by man-made radioactive elements,
such as plutonium or americium. Transuranic wastes remain radioactive for
extremely long periods--hundreds of thousands of years, in some cases.
Inhaling or ingesting even miniscule quantities of some transuranic
elements can cause cancer in humans.
According to DOE, the department has buried or stored approximately
238,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes (equal to the volume of about
100 Olympic-sized swimming pools) at its sites. About 111,000 cubic meters
of these wastes were generated mostly after 1970, and then stored at
various locations with the bulk of these wastes intended for transfer to
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)--a deep geologic repository in New
Mexico designed for permanent disposal of transuranic wastes.^1 The other
127,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes were disposed of, generally
before 1970, when DOE buried these wastes in shallow pits and trenches,
often with other radioactive and hazardous wastes.^2 DOE estimates that
most of these transuranic wastes are buried at its Hanford Site in
Washington state and the Idaho National Laboratory, while almost all of
the remaining transuranic wastes are buried at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee,
and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
^1This report refers to wastes that were generated after 1970 and
subsequently stored for deep geologic disposal at WIPP as "stored"
transuranic wastes. At some locations, these stored wastes were placed in
containers and then buried underground.
In addition to the threats that buried transuranic wastes may pose, the
other radioactive and hazardous wastes buried with them may pose
additional threats. Some of these wastes emit skin-penetrating radiation
and cannot be directly handled by humans. Other wastes, such as organic
solvents and toxic metals, are volatile. In some cases, these wastes can
migrate readily through soil, especially if exposed to water, and may
contaminate surface waters and groundwater.
Given the potential long-term threat that buried transuranic and other
radioactive and hazardous wastes may pose to human health and the
environment, including their potential to contaminate water resources,
state environmental protection officials and communities adjacent to these
disposal sites have expressed concerns about these wastes. You asked us to
(1) determine the legal requirements and policies governing DOE's efforts
to address transuranic wastes buried before 1970, (2) determine what DOE
is doing to address sites where these transuranic wastes are buried, and
(3) assess the reliability of DOE's estimated costs to address these
sites.
To conduct our work, we visited the five DOE sites that contain most of
DOE's transuranic wastes buried before 1970. We met with local DOE
officials at these five largest burial sites, which include the Hanford
Site, the Idaho National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
the Savannah River Site, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. To
determine the legal requirements and policies governing DOE's efforts to
address its buried transuranic wastes, we reviewed federal environmental
laws and regulations; DOE guidance concerning hazardous and radioactive
wastes; Federal Facility Agreements and Orders; a May 2006 federal
district court decision; and internal DOE, federal, and private studies on
the storage and disposition of transuranic wastes. To better understand
these laws, regulations, agreements, and policies we interviewed state
environmental protection officials and Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) officials that oversee each of the buried waste locations. To
determine what DOE is doing to address sites where transuranic wastes are
buried, we reviewed waste cleanup planning documents that DOE prepared for
these sites. In this context, we also interviewed scientific experts, DOE
site project managers, state environmental regulatory officials, and EPA
officials providing management and oversight at buried waste locations.
Finally, to assess the reliability of DOE's estimates of the cost of
addressing sites where transuranic wastes are buried, we analyzed each DOE
field location's fiscal year 2006 estimates for projects that included
cleaning up buried transuranic wastes. A more detailed description of our
scope and methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work
between May 2006 and May 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
^2Transuranic waste was first identified as a separate waste category in
1970, and its original statutory definition was revised in 1982. For ease
of discussion, this report refers to all wastes contaminated with
transuranic elements as transuranic wastes, regardless when it was
generated or disposed or whether it meets the current statutory
definition. Transuranic wastes that were disposed of at shallow or
intermediate depths before issuance and implementation of a 1970 directive
prohibiting this practice are referred to as "buried transuranic wastes."
Results in Brief
Cleanup agreements entered into with federal and state environmental
agencies require DOE to investigate and, as necessary, clean up sites
where radioactive and other hazardous wastes, including transuranic
wastes, were buried from the 1940s through 1970s. While DOE considered
transuranic wastes buried prior to 1970 to have been permanently disposed
of, the sites where most of these wastes are buried have since become
subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund," and
other environmental laws. Under CERCLA, EPA evaluates waste sites for
possible inclusion on the National Priorities List--EPA's list of the
nation's most serious contaminated sites that contain radioactive or other
hazardous substances. In 1989, EPA placed the sites where DOE buried most
of its transuranic wastes on the National Priorities List (Hanford Site,
Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Savannah
River Site). CERCLA requires DOE to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at each of these sites; identify options for addressing the
wastes and the relative risks, effectiveness, and costs of each option;
and to enter into a cleanup agreement with EPA for the expeditious
completion of all necessary cleanup actions. DOE has entered into
agreements with EPA and the affected states for carrying out cleanup
activities at these four sites. In addition, the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, which is not listed on the National Priorities List, is being
cleaned up in accordance with similar agreements with New Mexico under
other environmental laws. The agreements for the five sites set milestones
by which DOE is expected to complete cleanups at the sites. Of the five
sites, the latest scheduled completion date is for the Idaho National
Laboratory in 2025.
DOE has made cleanup decisions and is addressing the transuranic wastes
buried at Oak Ridge and Savannah River, but it is still investigating
cleanup options at the other three locations. At Oak Ridge and Savannah
River, where about 10 percent of DOE's transuranic wastes are buried, DOE
is leaving the transuranic wastes in place under a man-made barrier
constructed of layered vegetation, soil, clay, and synthetic liners
designed to prevent water from reaching the wastes and causing them to
migrate through the soil. DOE is also implementing controls, such as
perimeter fencing, to prevent animal intrusion and control human access to
the burial sites. DOE officials, in conjunction with the federal and state
environmental agencies, decided to contain the buried wastes in place
after concluding that it would be as safe or safer for workers and the
environment and less costly than removing the wastes from the ground.
Federal and state environmental agencies agreed with DOE's decisions. DOE
finished constructing the barriers at Oak Ridge in September 2006 and
expects to complete the barrier at Savannah River by summer 2007. In
contrast, at the other three sites--the Idaho National Laboratory, the
Hanford Site, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory--where about 90
percent of DOE's transuranic wastes are buried, DOE is in varying stages
of investigating cleanup options. A federal district court ruled in May
2006 that a 1995 agreement between DOE and Idaho requires DOE to remove
all of the stored and buried transuranic wastes at the Idaho site. DOE has
appealed this ruling, and, as an interim action, is removing a small
amount of transuranic wastes from the site. In the meantime, DOE is
evaluating cleanup options for the site and expects to select a cleanup
approach by 2009. At Los Alamos and Hanford, DOE is still in the early
stages of investigating waste areas and plans to evaluate cleanup options;
a cleanup approach will be decided for these sites by 2007 and 2013,
respectively. At Hanford, DOE has already agreed to remove a small amount
of buried transuranic waste that threatens the Columbia River. In general,
state environmental agencies have expressed concern that leaving the
transuranic wastes in place at the three sites, even with additional
controls to limit intrusion, may not adequately prevent the buried
contaminants from spreading to the environment in the long term. How much,
if any, buried transuranic wastes will eventually be removed from these
sites is undetermined, and final decisions are years away.
DOE's preliminary estimate of the cost to address the five waste sites
where transuranic wastes are buried is about $1.6 billion (in fiscal year
2006 dollars), but this estimate will likely increase substantially for
two principal reasons. First, DOE's estimate reflects the costs of leaving
most of the waste in place under engineered barriers, as DOE is doing at
Savannah River and Oak Ridge. This is typically the least expensive
approach for addressing buried waste. However, if DOE is required by EPA
or state environmental agencies to remove substantial portions of these
wastes, costs are likely to increase dramatically. For example, at Idaho,
where DOE and the state disagree over the extent to which DOE must remove
buried transuranic wastes, preliminary DOE cost estimate indicates that
removing all of the transuranic wastes would increase costs from about $1
billion to about $8.2 billion. Second, DOE's estimate excludes unknown
costs, such as the cost of disposing wastes off-site, if necessary. For
example, some wastes scheduled for exhumation may not meet the waste
acceptance criteria established for on-site disposal facilities and may
have to be packaged and transported elsewhere, which would increase costs.
According to DOE's Inspector General, the $113 million estimate to remove
transuranic wastes buried near the Columbia River at Hanford could triple
once options and costs for disposal are fully evaluated. As DOE moves
these projects forward and further evaluates the risks, benefits, and
costs of various cleanup options, its project management policies require
it to revise these cost estimates to improve their reliability. Thus, we
are not making recommendations at this time.
We provided a draft of this report to DOE for its review and comment.
Overall, DOE generally agreed with our findings. However, with regard to
the volume of transuranic wastes intended for disposal at WIPP, DOE stated
that it regularly adjusts its forecasts and does not currently project
that waste volumes will exceed WIPP capacity. While we agree that DOE's
current projections do not indicate WIPP capacity will fall short of
future requirements, cleanup decisions are still pending at the Hanford
Site and the Idaho National Laboratory, which together comprise the bulk
of DOE's total inventory of buried transuranic wastes. If substantial
portions of the transuranic wastes at these sites must be exhumed and
disposed of off-site, WIPP's authorized capacity may be insufficient. DOE
also provided technical clarifications, which we have incorporated in this
report as appropriate.
Background
DOE's current and former nuclear weapons complex includes dozens of sites
nationwide containing nuclear reactors, chemical processing buildings,
plants, laboratories, and maintenance facilities that manufactured
thousands of nuclear warheads and together conducted more than one
thousand nuclear explosion tests. The environmental legacy of nuclear
weapons production includes contaminated buildings, soils, water
resources, and large volumes of radioactive and hazardous wastes that
require treatment, stabilization to prevent migration, and disposal. DOE
estimated in 2006, that the future cost to clean up, dispose, and provide
long-term oversight of all wastes will be more than $230 billion over the
next 75 years.
Among the sites requiring environmental cleanup are the five sites
addressed in this report. The Hanford Site is located on the arid east
side of Washington state near Richland and adjacent to the Columbia River.
The site was established to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons during
World War II and, according to DOE, subsequently produced the majority of
the nation's plutonium during the Cold War. The Idaho National Laboratory,
located near Idaho Falls in the southeastern Idaho desert, was established
in 1949 as the National Reactor Testing Station and was the site of the
largest concentration of nuclear reactors--52--in the world. Los Alamos
National Laboratory, located in a mountainous area of northern New Mexico,
was established in 1943 and played a central role in researching the
advanced technologies required for nuclear weapons manufacture. It is
where the first atomic bomb was assembled. The Oak Ridge National
Laboratory near Knoxville, Tenn., was established in 1943 to pilot the
processing of uranium during World War II. The Savannah River Site, near
Aiken, S.C., was built in the 1950s to produce basic materials needed in
nuclear weapons manufacture, such as tritium and plutonium.
DOE's Office of Environmental Management is responsible for cleaning up
contamination left behind at these sites after decades of nuclear
production and research. Environmental management officials at DOE field
sites plan and oversee the cleanup activities at those sites, but the work
itself is carried out primarily by private firms contracted by DOE.
Officials from EPA, as well as environmental agency officials from the
states in which DOE sites are located, enforce federal and state
environmental laws and oversee and advise DOE on its cleanup efforts.
Transuranic elements, which have an atomic weight greater than uranium,
are man-made radioactive elements produced in nuclear reactors.
Transuranic wastes are created when materials such as clothing and tools
come into contact with plutonium and other transuranic elements during
processing activities and cannot be reused for other purposes. They were
first generated during operations to produce and recover plutonium for
nuclear weapons manufacture and are still being produced in small
quantities at laboratories where nuclear research continues today. Federal
law currently defines transuranic waste as waste containing more than 100
nanocuries of alpha-emitting transuranic elements (radiation) per gram and
with half-lives greater than 20 years with certain exceptions.^3 A
half-life is the amount of time required for an element to decay by half,
and nanocuries are a measure of radioactivity. Alpha-emitting radiation
cannot pass through objects, including human skin, but is extremely
dangerous if inhaled or ingested. Some buried wastes contaminated with
transuranic elements may not meet the current legal definition of
transuranic wastes. For ease of discussion in this report, however, we
refer to these wastes as buried transuranic wastes.
Cleanup Agreements Require DOE to Address Sites Where Transuranic Wastes Are
Buried
The cleanup agreements DOE entered into with federal and state
environmental agencies require DOE to investigate and take action as
necessary to clean up sites where transuranic and other wastes were
buried. The legal and regulatory framework governing management and
disposal of transuranic wastes has changed significantly over the past 50
years, particularly in 1970. Before 1970, there was no separate category
for what is now defined as transuranic waste. Consequently, the federal
government managed this waste as low-level radioactive waste, which it
buried along with hazardous wastes in unlined, shallow pits and trenches,
as shown in figure 1.
^3The definition of transuranic waste specifically excludes (1) high-level
radioactive waste; (2) waste that DOE has determined with the concurrence
of EPA, does not need the degree of isolation required by the disposal
regulations; or (3) waste that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
approved for disposal on a case by case basis in accordance with 10 C.F.R.
part 61. See Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L.No.
102-579, S 2(20), 106 Stat. 4777-79 (1992).
Figure 1: Typical Disposal of Transuranic and Other Wastes in Unlined
Trench at the Hanford Site Prior to 1970
In 1970, in response to concerns that transuranic elements remain
radioactive for an extremely long time and scientific research
recommending deep geologic disposal for this waste, the Atomic Energy
Commission--a DOE predecessor--directed sites that generated transuranic
wastes to begin segregating them from other wastes and storing them in
retrievable packages for an interim period of 20 years, pending disposal
in a repository.^4 In late 1979, Congress authorized DOE to develop a deep
geologic repository in New Mexico to permanently dispose of transuranic
wastes, including these stored transuranic wastes.^5 In October 1992,
Congress gave DOE management responsibility for the land, and gave EPA
substantial responsibility for regulating many of DOE's activities at the
repository.^6 This repository, known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP), began operating in the late 1990s and, in 1999, received its first
shipment of transuranic wastes generated after the 1970 directive to
segregate and store such wastes.
^4U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Immediate Action Directive, IAD No.
0511-21, March 20, 1970.
^5Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of
Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-164, 93 Stat.
1259, 1265 (1979).
The Atomic Energy Commission's 1970 directive did not apply to transuranic
wastes buried prior to 1970, and DOE considered these wastes permanently
disposed. However, the sites where these wastes are buried have since
become subject to CERCLA and other environmental laws. In particular,
section 120 of CERCLA^7 requires EPA to evaluate federal waste sites for
possible inclusion on the National Priorities List. In 1989, EPA included
on this list, the waste sites that contain most of DOE's buried
transuranic wastes--Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River.^8 With
this designation, CERCLA requires DOE to evaluate the nature and extent of
contamination at these sites and determine what cleanup actions, if any,
are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The buried
transuranic waste sites at Los Alamos were evaluated but were not placed
on the list. Cleanup of Los Alamos is being carried out under other
authorities. At Los Alamos, the cleanup is being conducted under
agreements with New Mexico--implementing the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) and state law--and under DOE's
Atomic Energy Act authority. The provisions of the Los Alamos cleanup
agreements are similar to those under CERCLA requirements, including a
schedule for conducting the cleanup. Los Alamos has multiple waste sites
that contain buried transuranic wastes, and DOE's agreements with the
state of New Mexico address each waste area separately.
To carry out the cleanup of its National Priorities List sites under
CERLCA, DOE must follow a process that includes extensive consultation
between DOE, EPA, and state environmental agencies, as well as
opportunities for public participation, to reach a decision on how DOE
should clean up the respective site. The process begins with DOE
consulting EPA and state environmental agencies and investigating the
nature and extent of contamination at each site and undertaking a
feasibility study to identify and evaluate possible approaches for
cleaning up each site. After evaluating the approaches, DOE selects a
"preferred alternative" that meets CERCLA requirements and presents, for
public comment, a proposed plan explaining its preferred approach for
cleaning up the wastes. DOE considers the public's comments and consults
with EPA and the state environmental agency to determine a cleanup
approach.
^6Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. No. 102-579,
106 Stat. 4777 (1992), as amended by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land
Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-201, 110 Stat. 2851 (1996).
^742 U.S.C. S 9620.
^8See 54 Fed. Reg. 48184 (Nov. 21, 1989).
Once the parties have reached agreement, the approach and the rationale
for selecting it are published in a legally binding Record of Decision. In
addition, DOE must enter into an interagency agreement with EPA that
includes, among other things, a schedule for completing cleanup of the
site. The environmental agency in the affected state is also a party to
the agreements for Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. If the
selected cleanup approach will involve leaving hazardous substances at the
site, DOE must monitor the effectiveness of the approach and review the
action every 5 years to determine whether any additional actions are
necessary to protect human health and the environment.^9 The provisions of
the agreements, including the milestones, are legally enforceable and can
be revised, as necessary, to incorporate new information and address
changing conditions. As shown in table 1, DOE is currently scheduled to
complete cleanup actions at all five sites by 2025.
^9CERCLA, S 121(c), 42 U.S.C. S 9621(c). Under Executive Order 12580, DOE
is responsible for conducting 5-year reviews at DOE sites.
Table 1: Interagency Agreement Schedule for Addressing DOE Sites
Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes
Estimated
volume of
buried
transuranic Site Remedial
waste(in cubic investigation Alternatives Remedy action
meters) completed proposed selected completed
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory^a 7,450 1997 1998 2000 2006
Savannah
River Site^a 4,530 1994 2001 2002 2008
Los Alamos
National
Laboratory^b 11,800 2006 2007 2007 2015
Hanford Site 66,700 2011 2011 2013 2024
Idaho
National
Laboratory 36,800 2006 2007 2008 2025
Source: Data provided by DOE.
aFor Oak Ridge and Savannah River, the dates for completing site
investigation, proposing alternatives, selecting a remedy and completing
remediation are actual, rather than scheduled. In addition, the remedy
implemented at Oak Ridge is considered interim, until a final cleanup
decision--expected in 2015--is reached. The final cleanup decision could
involve additional remedial action to address transuranic wastes buried
there.
bThe dates in the table represent the latest date by which Los Alamos is
scheduled to complete cleanup of the final buried transuranic waste site,
Material Disposal Area G.
DOE Is Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes in Place at Two Sites but Is Still
Developing Cleanup Plans at the Largest Waste Sites
DOE has made cleanup decisions and is addressing transuranic wastes at Oak
Ridge and Savannah River, but the department is still investigating
cleanup options at the other three locations where most of DOE's
transuranic wastes are buried. DOE plans to leave transuranic wastes
buried at Oak Ridge and Savannah River in place under an engineered
barrier and take additional measures to prevent intrusions that could
expose humans and the environment to the buried contaminants. In contrast,
DOE is still evaluating cleanup options at the Idaho National Laboratory,
Hanford Site and Los Alamos National Laboratory, where about 90 percent of
its buried transuranic wastes are located. The extent to which DOE will be
required to retrieve buried wastes or will be allowed to manage these
wastes in place is currently unknown, and cleanup decisions for the
majority of these wastes are several years away. However, DOE has agreed
to retrieve some of the wastes buried at Hanford and Idaho, because the
wastes may threaten nearby surface waters and groundwater.
Cleanup Agreements at Oak Ridge and Savannah River Call for Containing Buried
Transuranic Wastes in Place
In accordance with CERCLA's requirements, DOE evaluated a number of
approaches for addressing transuranic wastes buried at Oak Ridge and
Savannah River. At both sites, DOE had originally disposed of the wastes
in near-surface burial pits and trenches, often with other radioactive or
hazardous wastes, including cesium, strontium, and volatile organic
compounds. The two sites contain about 10 percent of the estimated 127,000
cubic meters of transuranic wastes buried across the five DOE sites. DOE
officials at both sites considered several cleanup options, ranging from
managing the wastes in place to removing them from the ground and
disposing of any exhumed transuranic wastes at WIPP.
DOE, EPA, and state environmental agencies at both sites agreed that DOE
should manage the buried wastes in place, because doing so would be
equally or more protective of human health and the environment, and less
costly than removing the wastes. Because DOE lacked adequate information
on the specific location, condition, or concentration of the wastes in the
burial sites, DOE and environmental agency officials said they were
concerned that workers attempting to remove buried wastes would expose
themselves to harmful contaminants or release contaminants into the
environment. DOE and environmental agency officials told us that without
adequate information on the location, condition or concentration of the
wastes, efforts to mitigate the risks associated with retrieving the
wastes would have been costly, requiring specialized enclosures for the
waste areas, protective suits for workers, frequent rotation of workers to
minimize their potential exposure, or other measures. According to these
officials, attempts to determine the specific locations and other
characteristics of the buried contaminants would likely expose workers and
the environment to these same risks, because workers would be required to
dig into the burial grounds in order to sample buried wastes. Furthermore,
the officials were concerned that sampling buried wastes would not yield
reliable information.
As a result, DOE, EPA, and state environmental agencies at the two sites
agreed that DOE should manage the wastes in place by constructing
engineered barriers over the top of the burial grounds and implementing
additional controls to limit access to the burial grounds and help ensure
the barriers' effectiveness. The barriers' overall purpose is to prevent
rainwater, animals, or other intrusions from entering the burial ground
and potentially causing wastes to migrate into the air, groundwater, or
nearby surface waters. Barriers are generally composed of multiple layers
of earthen and synthetic materials (see fig. 2), depending on the
site-specific conditions. Surface vegetation and soil function to absorb
moisture, promote evaporation, and prevent water from filtering down to
the wastes beneath the barrier. A diversion ditch carries surface water
away from the waste site. Layers of rock, clay, and synthetic fabrics
redirect moisture away from the buried wastes--and protect the wastes from
burrowing animals.
Figure 2. Example of an Engineered Barrier Constructed over a Burial
Ground Containing Radioactive or Hazardous Wastes
Note: This figure depicts a barrier intended to remediate a waste site in
a wet climate. Barriers constructed at arid sites may differ.
DOE finished constructing the engineered barriers at Oak Ridge in
September 2006 and expects to complete construction at Savannah River by
summer 2007 (see fig. 3). The Oak Ridge barriers are considered an interim
measure under CERCLA, in part because DOE and the state are still
assessing the conditions under which long-lived radioactive wastes,
including transuranic wastes, should be permanently disposed of in-place.
DOE officials at Oak Ridge said they expect a final cleanup decision by
2015, at which time additional remedial actions to address the buried
transuranic wastes could be required.
In addition to the barriers, DOE plans to establish physical and long-term
administrative controls at the two sites aimed at limiting access to areas
where buried wastes were left in place. For example, DOE plans to install
perimeter fencing and gates at both sites and restrict activities to
maintenance of the engineered barriers. DOE also plans to prohibit certain
types of land uses in these areas, such as residential use. It will
transfer land-use restrictions at Savannah River to any future occupants,
should the federal government decide to sell or lease land that includes
the burial grounds. Furthermore, DOE officials from both sites will
evaluate and repair the cap, as needed, and provide physical controls or
sampling of the groundwater or surface waters in these areas for evidence
of contamination. DOE conducts formal reviews of the barriers and related
controls every 5 years. If EPA determines the measures are not fully
effective, DOE may be required to take further actions, including removing
some or all of the buried wastes.
Figure 3: Aerial View of an Engineered Barrier under Construction at Oak
Ridge
DOE Is Still Developing Cleanup Plans at the Three Locations Where Most
Transuranic Wastes Are Buried, but Some Waste Removal Is Already Under Way
DOE is still evaluating cleanup options for most of the waste at the three
remaining sites--the Hanford Site, the Idaho National Laboratory, and the
Los Alamos National Laboratory--where about 90 percent of DOE's
transuranic wastes are buried.
Hanford Site
The Hanford Site contains about 66,700 cubic meters of buried transuranic
wastes, or about 53 percent of DOE's total inventory of such wastes. These
wastes were primarily disposed of in trenches in a 272-acre area located
in the central portion of the site and near the Columbia River. DOE is in
the early stages of site investigations to determine the extent and type
of contamination for most of its burial sites, and according to DOE, the
department is scheduled to evaluate cleanup options and determine its
preferred cleanup approach by 2013. However, DOE officials said that about
1,100 of the estimated 66,700 cubic meters of buried transuranic wastes
are located in another area of the Hanford site closer to the Columbia
River than other sites. In 2001, DOE agreed to remove the transuranic
wastes buried in this area, as part of an interim effort to mitigate a
plume of tritium, a radioactive (but not transuranic) contaminant that is
migrating and could contaminate the Columbia River. Cleanup is scheduled
for completion by 2012. Overall, although a cleanup decision for most of
Hanford's buried transuranic wastes is years away, EPA and Washington
state environmental officials have expressed concern that leaving much of
the buried transuranic and other hazardous wastes in place under
engineered barriers--even with additional controls to limit intrusion--may
not provide adequate long-term protection for human health and the
environment, and some removal of these wastes may be necessary. Citizen
groups, such as the Hanford Advisory Council expressed similar concerns
regarding the risks of leaving long-lived radioactive wastes, such as
transuranic wastes, in place.
Idaho National Laboratory
The Idaho National Laboratory contains about 36,800 cubic meters of buried
transuranic wastes, or about 29 percent of DOE's inventory of such wastes.
DOE officials at the Idaho site have prepared a draft feasibility study
identifying possible alternatives for cleaning up the subsurface disposal
area--a 97-acre area where transuranic, as well as other radioactive and
hazardous wastes, are buried--which the department submitted to EPA and
state environmental officials for review in March 2007. The alternatives
described in the draft study ranged from containing most of the buried
wastes in place under an engineered barrier to retrieving some or all of
the wastes and permanently disposing of the transuranic portion at WIPP.
DOE, EPA, and the state environmental agency are scheduled to document the
selected cleanup approach in a record of decision by 2008. In 2005, DOE
began removing some transuranic and other wastes buried in a 3-acre
section of the 97-acre disposal area. DOE agreed to remove the wastes to
prevent the contaminants from migrating to the Snake River aquifer, a
drinking water source located about 580 feet below the disposal area.
Although a cleanup approach has not yet been determined for most of the
97-acre disposal area, DOE may be required to remove a significant portion
of the buried transuranic wastes that remain. DOE and Idaho state
officials have a long-standing disagreement regarding the amount of
transuranic wastes that DOE had agreed to remove from the Idaho site under
a 1995 settlement agreement with the state, in a case concerning shipments
of spent nuclear fuel into Idaho. The state of Idaho subsequently sought
to enforce terms of the agreement in court, and in 2006, a federal
district court ruled that DOE is obligated under the agreement to remove
all the transuranic wastes at the Idaho National Laboratory site.^10 DOE
has appealed the district court's decision,^11 but, in accordance with
CERCLA requirements and the cleanup agreement for the site, the department
is continuing to work with EPA and the state environmental agency to
decide on a cleanup approach for most of the wastes buried at the site.
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory has about 12,000 cubic meters of buried
transuranic wastes, or almost 10 percent of DOE's inventory of such
wastes. These wastes, which also include hazardous wastes, such as
volatile organic compounds, according to DOE, are in four disposal areas
that comprise about 85 acres of the Los Alamos site. DOE is currently
conducting site investigations to determine the extent and nature of
contamination at the disposal areas and plans to evaluate cleanup options
for those areas.
^10Public Service Company of Colorado v. Kempthorne, CV 91-035-S-EJL (D.
Idaho, May 25, 2006). The court stated that unless something is
encountered that would prohibit its removal, the 1995 agreement obligates
the United States to remove all transuranic wastes, with the buried
transuranic waste being on a time schedule dictated by CERCLA and the
Federal Facility Agreement and Compliance Order. The court further stated
that should EPA ultimately conclude that removal of certain waste is too
dangerous and Idaho disagrees, the court would necessarily have to resolve
that dispute and retained jurisdiction to do so.
^11United States v. Andrus, No. 06-35661 (9th Cir. filed July 24, 2006).
Unlike the other four DOE sites containing buried transuranic wastes, Los
Alamos was not included on the National Priorities List and, therefore,
transuranic wastes buried there are not being addressed through the CERCLA
process. Instead, cleanup of the buried waste sites is being carried out
under a combination of other federal and state environmental laws and
internal DOE orders.
Hazardous wastes buried at Los Alamos are being addressed through RCRA.
RCRA requires owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous wastes to obtain a permit from EPA, or an authorized
state, specifying how the facilities will safely manage that waste. RCRA
further authorizes EPA (or an authorized state) to require facilities
holding or seeking permits to clean up contamination at those facilities.
As provided under RCRA, EPA has authorized New Mexico to carry out a RCRA
hazardous waste program under state law in lieu of the federal program.
The cleanup process under the RCRA program is generally similar to CERCLA,
including an investigation of contaminated areas and evaluation of cleanup
options to select a cleanup approach.
DOE will address radioactive wastes, which have been commingled with
hazardous wastes at Los Alamos, under provisions of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, which allows DOE to direct the process of
investigating and cleaning up radioactive contamination according to its
own regulations and internal directives. DOE has an agreement with the
state environmental agency that it would investigate its buried waste
sites containing transuranic wastes by 2006 and complete any cleanup
actions by 2015.^12
12Radionuclides are regulated under DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection
of the Public and the Environment, and DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste
Management.
Estimated Costs to Address Waste Disposal Areas in Which Transuranic Wastes Are
Buried Will Likely Increase
DOE's preliminary cost estimates for addressing the five waste sites where
transuranic and other hazardous wastes have been buried total about $1.6
billion (in fiscal year 2006 dollars). Because these wastes are
commingled, the cost of addressing just the buried transuranic wastes
cannot be separately determined. DOE's estimates are based on the costs of
managing most of these wastes in place rather than removing them for
off-site disposal. However, DOE cautions these estimates are preliminary
and not entirely reliable because some wastes may need to be retrieved and
disposed of off-site, which would increase costs substantially. In
addition, some costs are not included because they are not yet known. As
DOE moves these projects forward to further evaluate its various cleanup
options, DOE's policies require it to revise cost estimates, accordingly.
DOE Has Developed Cost Estimates to Address Geographic Areas Containing
Transuranic and Other Waste
DOE has not separately estimated the costs to address only buried
transuranic wastes, but estimates that the costs to address the burial
grounds in which transuranic and other hazardous wastes have been disposed
are about $1.6 billion through 2035. The specific costs associated with
addressing only transuranic wastes cannot be determined because DOE's
Office of Environmental Management, which is charged with cleaning up the
disposal areas that include transuranic wastes, defines cleanup projects
by geographic waste disposal areas, rather than by contaminant types. This
is because many types of wastes and contaminants were disposed together in
a specific geographic area; and in general, the Office of Environmental
Management intends to address various wastes buried in each geographic
disposal area as a group. The estimates to address the burial grounds
reflect the "lifecycle" of each project--that is the total estimated
expenditures for all aspects of managing a cleanup project from start to
finish. These cost estimates are reported in DOE's annual budget request
to the Congress and comprise a portion of DOE's environmental liabilities
estimate included in its annual financial statement.
As shown in table 2, DOE's estimated lifecycle baseline costs to address
the burial grounds containing transuranic wastes range from $36 million at
the Savannah River Site--where officials are in the final stages of
completing construction of a cap to contain the wastes--to $1 billion at
the Idaho National Laboratory, where DOE has begun to remove selected
wastes for disposal off-site, but is still evaluating options to address
most of the remaining buried waste.
Table 2: Summary of DOE Estimated Lifecycle Costs to Address Disposal
Areas Containing Buried Transuranic and Other Hazardous Wastes
In constant 2006 dollars
Estimated
total
lifecycle
cost to Estimated
address percent of
Total waste disposal total
disposal areas transuranic
area containing Remedy assumed Year waste
containing transuranic by DOE for cleanup volume
transuranic wastes (in cost action buried at
wastes (in millions of estimation will be each
Location acres) dollars)^a purposes completed location
Oak Ridge 140 $90.3^b Surface cap 2006 6
Laboratory, and land use
Oak Ridge, controls
TN
Savannah 76 36.1 Surface cap 2008 4
River Site, and
Aiken, SC institutional
controls
Idaho 97^c 1,027.4 Retrieval of 2025 29
National hazardous and
Laboratory, radioactive
Idaho Falls, wastes from
ID targeted
3-acre area,
surface cap,
organic vapor
extraction,
institutional
controls
Hanford 272 320^d Retrieval of 2035^d 52
Site, some wastes
Richland, WA from targeted
13-acre area,
surface
capping, and
institutional
controls
85 113.9 Surface cap 2015 9
Los Alamos designed for
National arid
Laboratory, conditions and
Los Alamos, institutional
NM controls
Total 670 $1,587.7 100
Source: Data provided by DOE.
aCosts largely exclude those associated with long-term oversight of the
waste site, which are costs that will be assumed by the long-term steward,
rather than the Office of Environmental Management. Such costs are
included, however, as part of the DOE estimate for environmental
liabilities reported to the Congress, and elsewhere. See A Report to
Congress on Long-Term Stewardship, DOE/EM-0563, January 2001.
bCleanup has been completed at an actual cost of $90.3 million.
^cOnly 17 acres of the 97-acre burial site at Idaho is suspected of
containing transuranic wastes.
dCleanup is scheduled to be completed before 2025. This date is when the
Office of Environmental Management will transfer final control of the
property to the long-term steward. Cost estimate includes maintenance and
monitoring of the buried waste sites until 2035.
Cost Estimates Are Preliminary and Likely Understate the Actual Cost of
Addressing Buried Wastes
DOE's lifecycle cost estimates for addressing buried waste sites are
preliminary because DOE is still evaluating and choosing cleanup options
for the majority of its buried waste, and some of the probable costs
associated with cleanup efforts are currently unknown. DOE has stated that
it is only 50 percent confident that its lifecycle estimates accurately
reflect the costs of addressing buried waste sites. DOE's estimates will
likely increase, perhaps substantially, for several reasons.
First, the estimates are based upon treatment and remedy assumptions that
may be different from the final cleanup decision. The estimates are based
on DOE's assumption that it will manage most of the buried wastes in place
under engineered barriers and will monitor these barriers' effectiveness
for as long as necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. This is typically the lowest-cost approach for addressing
buried waste. DOE cost estimates are preliminary until an actual cleanup
decision has been reached, at which time the cost estimates are revised to
reflect that decision. If DOE is required to retrieve substantial portions
of the buried transuranic wastes and dispose of it off-site at WIPP or
elsewhere, costs could increase dramatically. For example if DOE must
retrieve all the buried transuranic from the Idaho National Laboratory
site, the department estimates that costs would increase from about $1
billion to about $8.2 billion. According to DOE, the substantially higher
costs are the result of activities to excavate wastes and the associated
construction and operation of new facilities to treat and dispose of
formerly buried wastes and new wastes created by the retrieval process.
Second, the authorized capacity of the WIPP is currently insufficient to
allow emplacement of large volumes of buried transuranic wastes beyond
those being exhumed at the Idaho site. Specifically, WIPP is statutorily
authorized to receive a maximum of 175,600 cubic meters of transuranic
wastes. The majority of that capacity has been reserved for about 108,000
cubic meters of transuranic wastes that were generated and placed in
storage at various DOE sites after 1970 and had not yet been emplaced at
WIPP as of 2002, the most recent year for which data are available. About
8,000 cubic meters of waste had already been emplaced at WIPP by 2002.
Wastes DOE has agreed to exhume from the Idaho National Laboratory are
expected to consume another 17,000 cubic meters of WIPP capacity. In
addition, DOE expects to generate about 17,000 cubic meters of additional
transuranic wastes from future nuclear research and waste cleanup
activities, and these wastes also are intended for disposal at WIPP. In
total, DOE estimates that stored wastes, newly generated wastes and the
wastes being exhumed currently at Idaho together will consume about
150,000 cubic meters of WIPP's authorized capacity, leaving only about
25,600 cubic meters for disposal of other transuranic wastes. DOE has
estimated that if current plans to manage most wastes in place change and
buried transuranic wastes across the weapons complex must be exhumed and
disposed of off-site, up to 85,000 additional cubic meters could
potentially require disposal at the WIPP. Developing alternative disposal
paths for the estimated 60,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes
exceeding current WIPP capacity could further increase costs.
Third, other assumptions DOE has incorporated into its cost estimates may
also be incorrect, causing DOE's cost estimates to increase. For example,
DOE's preliminary cost estimates assume that installing a barrier over one
of the Los Alamos burial grounds will safely contain buried wastes.
However, DOE reports that if further analysis shows this assumption is
incorrect and a more complex solution, such as grouting or vitrification
is required, then cost estimates would increase significantly. Grouting is
a process that uses concrete to bind wastes together and impede their
migration through soil. Vitrification immobilizes the wastes in glass. At
two other locations, DOE has assumed that federal and state regulators
will not require further characterization or excavation. However, if
additional characterization is required, DOE reports that costs could
increase.
Finally, DOE has not included in its estimate some probable cost amounts
that are currently unknown. For example, at DOE's Hanford site, highly
radioactive and hazardous wastes were buried under 10 to15 feet of earth
in vertical pipes and other containers at a site that is near the Columbia
River. DOE has reported that the lifecycle cost to remove these wastes is
about $113 million. However, according to DOE's Inspector General, this
estimate does not include all potential costs to store, monitor, and
dispose of this waste once it has been removed, which could increase the
cost to more than $300 million.^13 According to DOE officials, DOE had not
yet evaluated methods for retrieving and disposing of the waste and, as a
result, the costs for these actions were unknown. In addition, both
Hanford and the Idaho National Laboratory lifecycle cost estimates exclude
administrative costs and management fees that will eventually be
negotiated with the private firms contracted to manage the cleanup effort.
Since contracts have not yet been awarded for much of the buried waste
cleanup, those costs have yet to be determined.
^13U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Remediation of
the Waste Burial Grounds at the Hanford Site, Washington, D.C.: October
2006; DOE/IG-0743.
As DOE moves forward to further evaluate the risks, benefits, and costs of
various buried waste cleanup options, DOE's cost estimating and project
management policies expect staff to refine the estimates.^14According to
DOE guidance, the cost uncertainty is greatest during the period that site
investigations and evaluations of cleanup options are being conducted.
Typically, DOE includes what it calls an "unfunded contingency" in its
lifecycle estimates to account for unanticipated future events, but
officials said they do not include the contingency at a project level that
includes buried waste cleanup estimates. DOE expects cost estimates to
become somewhat more accurate during the design phase of a project and to
become substantially more accurate once a cleanup remedy has been chosen
and construction has been authorized.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the DOE for its review and comment.
In its comments, the department generally agreed with our report. The
department agreed that uncertainties surround the disposition of buried
transuranic wastes and that the volume of such wastes intended for WIPP
could increase. However, the department stated that EPA's recertification
process for WIPP, which occurs every 5 years, includes a forecast of waste
disposal volumes and that current projections do not indicate insufficient
WIPP capacity. The department further stated that it is prepared to manage
the uncertainties regarding the future disposition of these wastes. While
we agree that current projections do not indicate WIPP capacity will fall
short of future requirements, at the time of our review, cleanup decisions
were still pending at the Hanford Site and the Idaho National Laboratory.
These two sites comprise over 80 percent of DOE's total estimated
inventory of buried transuranic wastes and it is unclear how much of these
buried wastes ultimately must be exhumed. As we stated in our report, if
substantial volumes of the transuranic wastes at these sites must be
exhumed and disposed of off-site, WIPP's authorized capacity could be
inadequate.
DOE provided additional technical comments, including clarifications on
terminology and ongoing litigation at the Idaho National Laboratory. We
incorporated these clarifications as appropriate. DOE's comments are
presented in appendix II.
^14DOE G 430.1-1, Cost Estimating Guide; DOE G 430.1-1X, Cost Estimating
Guide for Program and Project Management.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy, and we also
will make copies available to others on 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 or need
additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected]. Contact points for our Office of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report.
Other staff contributing to this report can be found in appendix III.
James Cosgrove
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To conduct our work, we visited buried waste landfills and stored waste
facilities, and we met with local Department of Energy (DOE) officials at
each of DOE's five largest transuranic waste burial sites--the Hanford
Site, the Idaho National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
the Savannah River Site, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We also
reviewed studies and scientific reports by DOE and other federal agencies
and the National Academy of Sciences on the storage and disposition of
transuranic wastes, and interviewed experts in the field.
To determine the extent to which legal requirements and policies govern
DOE's efforts to address buried transuranic wastes, we reviewed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as amended (RCRA), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE regulations and guidance
concerning radioactive and hazardous wastes. We also reviewed the Federal
Facility Agreements and Orders between DOE, EPA, and each state with a
site where DOE has buried transuranic wastes, as well as a May 2006
federal district court decision interpreting an agreement between DOE and
the state of Idaho concerning DOE's obligation to remove buried
transuranic wastes from the Idaho National Laboratory site. To better
understand the implementation of these laws, regulations, policies, and
agreements at DOE sites, we interviewed state environmental regulatory
officials and EPA officials that oversee each of the buried waste
locations. We did not interview EPA officials in New Mexico because EPA
has authorized the state of New Mexico to carry out a state RCRA program
under state law in lieu of the federal program.
To determine how DOE plans to address buried waste at each of its sites,
we reviewed the planning documents DOE has prepared to comply with CERCLA
or RCRA requirements, feasibility studies describing remediation
alternatives, records of decision for sites that have selected a remedy
for buried waste, and internal DOE reports regarding buried transuranic
wastes, and interviewed the project managers and engineers responsible for
overseeing the remediation of each buried waste site.
To determine DOE's estimated costs for addressing disposal sites
containing buried transuranic wastes and to evaluate the accuracy of those
estimates, we analyzed each field location's fiscal year 2006 lifecycle
baseline estimates for specific projects that included cleaning up
previously disposed transuranic wastes. Because DOE has generally defined
cleanup projects by geographic waste disposal areas rather than by waste
types, we were unable to determine the specific costs associated with
addressing only transuranic wastes. To better understand the lifecycle
cost estimates, we reviewed DOE cost estimating and project management
guidance and interviewed officials responsible for preparing and reporting
cost estimates to DOE. All cost estimates in this report are in constant
2006 dollars.
In reporting the volumes of transuranic wastes buried at DOE sites, we
relied on estimates made by DOE in 1999 and reported in 2000, the most
recent available comprehensive inventory of such wastes.^1 In reporting
the inventory of buried transuranic wastes, we included wastes buried at
both shallow depths (less than 100 feet) and intermediate depths (between
100 and 1,000 feet). In addition, we adjusted the buried waste inventory
reported for Los Alamos and Hanford because officials there had
subsequently developed more accurate inventory data that showed a somewhat
lower volume than had been reported in 2000. At other locations, DOE
officials said they believed the 2000 report reflected the most accurate
data available. With regard to the inventory of stored transuranic wastes
reported in 2000, we used data from a 2001 DOE report.^2 Some of that
waste has now been disposed of permanently at the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. The inventory of the remaining volume of
transuranic wastes currently in storage at DOE sites continues to change
because of ongoing shipments to WIPP for permanent disposal and was not
available from DOE.
We performed our work between May 2006 and May 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
^1Department of Energy, Buried Contaminated Transuranic Waste Information
for U.S. Department of Energy Facilities, June 2000.
^2Department of Energy, Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent
Nuclear Fuel and Contaminated Media Managed by the U.S. Department of
Energy, April 2001.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy
Appendix III: Contact Information and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
James Cosgrove, (202) 512-3841 Gene Aloise, (202) 512-3841
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the individuals named above, Bill Swick, Assistant
Director; Doreen Feldman; Michael Meleady; Mehrzad Nadji; James Noel;
Alison O'Neill; Jeff Rueckhaus; and Ginny Vanderlinde made key
contributions to this report.
(360706)
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 ( 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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-761 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact James Cosgrove, 202-512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [28]GAO-07-761 , a report to the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives
June 2007
NUCLEAR WASTE
Plans for Addressing Most Buried Transuranic Wastes Are Not Final and
Preliminary Cost Estimates Will Likely Increase
Since the 1940s, the development of nuclear weapons technologies has
generated transuranic wastes--materials contaminated by certain man-made
radioactive elements. These wastes can remain dangerous for thousands of
years. Until 1970, the Department of Energy's (DOE) predecessors buried
these wastes in shallow pits and trenches. Today, state officials and
communities near DOE's major disposal sites have expressed concerns that
such wastes might contaminate important ground and surface water
resources.
GAO was asked to (1) determine the legal requirements and policies
affecting DOE's efforts to address transuranic wastes buried before 1970,
(2) determine what DOE is doing to address sites where these transuranic
wastes are buried, and (3) assess the reliability of DOE's estimated costs
to address these sites.
We met with federal and state officials at five DOE sites containing
buried transuranic wastes, reviewed environmental laws and guidance, and
obtained buried waste cleanup cost estimates from each site.
In commenting on this report, DOE generally agreed with our findings, and
provided some clarifying comments.
[29]What GAO Recommends
GAO is not making recommendations at this time.
Cleanup agreements with federal and state agencies require DOE to
investigate and clean up the five major DOE sites where transuranic and
other hazardous wastes were buried. While DOE has long considered
pre-1970s buried wastes permanently disposed, in 1989, the sites where
most of these wastes are buried were listed as "Superfund" sites subject
to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA requires that DOE determine the nature and
extent of contamination at each waste site and determine what cleanup
action, if any, is needed to protect human health and the environment. All
five disposal sites are scheduled to have cleanup completed by 2025.
DOE is addressing the transuranic wastes buried at two sites, but it is
still investigating cleanup options at the other three locations. At Oak
Ridge and Savannah River, DOE is leaving the transuranic wastes in place
under an earthen cap designed to prevent the wastes from migrating and
taking steps to prevent animal and human access to the sites. In contrast,
DOE is still investigating cleanup options at the Idaho National
Laboratory, the Hanford Site, and the Los Alamos National
Laboratory--where about 90 percent of DOE's transuranic wastes are buried.
DOE has begun to remove a small amount of waste at the Idaho and Hanford
sites, but how much buried transuranic wastes eventually will be removed
or treated in place at these sites is currently undetermined.
DOE's preliminary estimate of the cost to address the five waste sites
where transuranic wastes are buried is about $1.6 billion in 2006 dollars,
but the estimate is likely to increase for several reasons. For example,
the estimates reflect the costs of leaving most waste under earthen
barriers--typically the least expensive approach. If DOE is required to
retrieve substantial portions of these wastes, costs would increase
dramatically. In addition, the estimates exclude unknown costs, such as
the cost of disposing wastes off-site, if necessary. For example, DOE's
lifecycle cost estimate to remove transuranic wastes buried near the
Columbia River at the Hanford site could triple once options and costs for
disposal are fully evaluated. As DOE further evaluates the risks,
benefits, and costs of cleanup options, its policies require it to improve
the reliability of cost estimates. Thus, GAO is not making recommendations
at this time.
References
Visible links
28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-761
*** End of document. ***