Uranium Enrichment: Extension of Decontamination and		 
Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to Cover Projected Cleanup	 
Costs (15-NOV-07, GAO-08-277T). 				 
                                                                 
Cleaning up the nation's three uranium enrichment plants will	 
cost billions of dollars and could span decades. These		 
plants--located near Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Paducah, Ky.; and	 
Portsmouth, Ohio--are contaminated with radioactive and hazardous
materials. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act created the Uranium	 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (Fund) to pay
for plant cleanup. Fund revenues come from an assessment on	 
domestic utilities and federal government appropriations. In	 
2004, GAO reported on the Fund's sufficiency to cover authorized 
activities. GAO recommended that Congress consider reauthorizing 
the Fund for 3 more years, to 2010, and require the Department of
Energy (DOE) to reassess the Fund's sufficiency before it expired
to determine if further extensions were needed. Because decisions
not yet made by DOE could affect the cost of cleanup and the	 
Fund's sufficiency, GAO also recommended that DOE develop	 
decontamination and decommissioning plans for the Paducah and	 
Portsmouth plants that would identify the most probable time	 
frames and costs for completing the cleanup work. This testimony 
is based on GAO's 2004 report. It summarizes the extent to which 
the Fund may be sufficient to cover authorized activities and the
status of DOE's progress in developing decontamination and	 
decommissioning plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-277T					        
    ACCNO:   A78188						        
  TITLE:     Uranium Enrichment: Extension of Decontamination and     
Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to Cover Projected Cleanup	 
Costs								 
     DATE:   11/15/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Cost analysis					 
	     Decontamination					 
	     Environmental cleanups				 
	     Hazardous waste disposal				 
	     Hazardous waste sites				 
	     Hazardous wastes					 
	     Nuclear energy					 
	     Nuclear facilities 				 
	     Nuclear facility decommissioning			 
	     Nuclear fuel plants				 
	     Nuclear powerplants				 
	     Nuclear waste disposal				 
	     Radioactive waste disposal 			 
	     Schedule slippages 				 
	     Uranium						 
	     Cost estimates					 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     Program implementation				 
	     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and		 
	     Decommissioning Fund				 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-277T

   

     * [1]Background
     * [2]At Projected Costs and Revenues, the Fund Will Be Insufficie
     * [3]Uncertainty Over the Extent of the Fund's Insufficiency Rema
     * [4]Contact and Acknowledgments
     * [5]GAO's Mission
     * [6]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [7]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [8]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [9]Congressional Relations
     * [10]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST
Thursday, November 15, 2007

URANIUM ENRICHMENT

Extension of Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to
Cover Projected Cleanup Costs

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director
Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-08-277T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on the sufficiency of
the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund (Fund) as
you consider its reauthorization. As you know, the 1992 Energy Policy Act,
as amended,^1 established the Fund and authorized contributions for 15
years (ending in 2007) to be made by federal government appropriations and
payments from domestic utility companies. The Fund is the government's
principal source of funding for the decontamination and decommissioning of
the Department of Energy's (DOE) three uranium enrichment plants, located
near Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio. These
plants, which encompass more than 30 million square feet of floor space,
miles of interconnecting pipes, and thousands of acres of land, are
contaminated with radioactive and hazardous materials. The cleanup of
these plants--the responsibility of DOE's Office of Environmental
Management--will cost billions of dollars and could span several decades.
Cleanup activities include assessing, treating, and disposing of the
contamination found at the plants and the decontamination and
decommissioning of inactive facilities. DOE conducts its cleanup
activities under the requirements of several federal environmental laws
and compliance agreements with relevant regulatory authorities, including
the Environmental Protection Agency and state regulatory agencies.

In 2004, we reported on actions DOE had taken to reduce the cleanup costs
the Fund is authorized to support and the extent to which the Fund is
sufficient to cover authorized activities.^2 Because we found that the
Fund would likely be insufficient, we recommended that Congress consider
reauthorizing the Fund for an additional 3 years, to 2010, and require DOE
to reassess the Fund's sufficiency before the 2007 expiration date to
determine if extensions beyond 2010 would be needed. Additionally, to
reduce uncertainty regarding the Fund's sufficiency, we recommended that
the Secretary of Energy develop decontamination and decommissioning plans
for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants that would identify the most
probable time frames and costs for completing the cleanup work. My
testimony today (1) includes findings from our 2004 report, which examined
the extent to which the Fund was sufficient to cover authorized
activities, and (2) provides an update on DOE's progress in developing
decontamination and decommissioning plans at the Paducah and Portsmouth
plants.

^1All further references to the Energy Policy Act refer to the Energy
Policy Act, as amended.

^2GAO, Uranium Enrichment: Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Is
Insufficient to Cover Cleanup Costs, [11]GAO-04-692 (Washington, D.C.:
July 2, 2004).

In preparing our 2004 report, we obtained DOE's estimates for cleanup and
other key costs at the three plants, and current and likely revenue
projections. We assessed the reliability of these data and determined that
they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. We used
the data to develop a number of simulation models, which factored in cost
and revenue projections on an annual basis, as well as uncertainties
surrounding inflation rates, interest rates, the costs and revenues, and
the timing of the final decontamination and decommissioning work at the
Paducah and Portsmouth plants. In addition, to prepare for this testimony,
we reviewed DOE's status reports developed in response to our 2004 report
and interviewed DOE headquarters officials to determine DOE's progress to
date in developing decontamination and decommissioning plans at Paducah
and Portsmouth. We performed our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

In summary,

           o The Fund will be insufficient to cover all of its authorized
           activities. Specifically, our baseline model showed that by 2044,
           the most likely date for completing all cleanup activities at the
           plants, cleanup costs will have exceeded revenues by $3.8 billion
           to $6.2 billion (in 2007 dollars). Irrespective of which model we
           used, we found that the Fund would be insufficient. Each of the
           alternative models--(1) accelerated time frames, (2) deferred time
           frames, and (3) baseline time frames with additional revenues from
           government contributions as authorized under current
           law--demonstrated that the cleanup costs would exceed revenues. We
           recommended that Congress consider reauthorizing the Fund for an
           additional 3 years, to 2010, and require DOE to reassess the
           Fund's sufficiency before the expiration date to determine if
           extensions beyond 2010 would be needed.

           o DOE has not yet issued plans for the decontamination and
           decommissioning of the Paducah and Portsmouth plants as GAO
           recommended. According to DOE officials, the department is now in
           the process of finalizing a report that contains new schedule and
           cost information for both plants and addresses the sufficiency of
           the Fund. However, DOE did not make that information available to
           GAO and therefore, we were unable to assess how any new schedule
           or cost estimates may affect the Fund's sufficiency. Until DOE
           issues plans that provide the most probable time frames and costs
           for completing decontamination and decommissioning at the Paducah
           and Portsmouth plants, it is not possible to more precisely
           determine the total funding needed to cover the authorized cleanup
           activities.
			  
			  Background

           The federal government has enriched uranium for use by commercial
           nuclear power plants and for defense-related purposes for more
           than 40 years at three plants, located near Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
           Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio (see fig. 1). The Oak
           Ridge plant, known as East Tennessee Technology Park, is located
           on 1,500 acres of land; the oldest of the three plants, it has not
           produced enriched uranium since 1985. The Paducah plant, located
           on about 3,500 acres, continues to enrich uranium for commercial
           nuclear power plants under a lease to a private company, the
           United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC). The Portsmouth plant,
           a 3,700-acre site, ceased enriching uranium in May 2001 because of
           reductions in the commercial market for enriched uranium. Later
           that year, the plant was placed on cold standby (an inactive
           status that maintains the plant in a usable condition), so that
           production at the facility could be restarted in the event of a
           significant disruption in the nation's supply of enriched uranium.
           USEC was awarded the contract to maintain the plant in cold
           standby, a condition that continues today.^3 Yet because of newer,
           more efficient enrichment technologies and the globalization of
           the uranium enrichment market, all three uranium enrichment plants
           have become largely obsolete. Therefore, DOE now faces the task of
           decontaminating, decommissioning, and undertaking other remedial
           actions^4 at these large and complex plants, which are
           contaminated with hazardous industrial, chemical, nuclear, and
           radiological materials.
			  
^3USEC was also responsible for uranium enrichment before operations
ceased and it has begun construction on a new centrifuge uranium
enrichment plant at this site.

^4Remedial actions refer to environmental cleanup activities directed at
eliminating or reducing contaminant sources and contaminated soil and
groundwater.			  

Figure 1: Location of the Three Uranium Enrichment Plants

In 1991, at the request of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, GAO
analyzed the adequacy of a $500 million annual deposit into a fund to pay
for the cost of cleanup at DOE's three uranium enrichment plants.^5 We
reported that a $500 million deposit indexed to inflation would likely be
adequate, assuming that deposits would be made annually into the fund as
long as cleanup costs were expected to be incurred, which, at the time of
our study, was until 2040. Additionally, in a related report, we concluded
that the decommissioning costs at the plants should be paid by the
beneficiaries of the services provided by DOE--in this case, DOE's
commercial and governmental customers.^6

In 1992, the Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which established the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund to pay for the
costs of decontaminating and decommissioning the nation's three uranium
enrichment plants. The Energy Policy Act also authorized the Fund to pay
remedial action costs associated with the plants' operation, to the extent
that funds were available, and to reimburse uranium and thorium licensees
for the portion of their cleanup costs associated with the sale of these
materials to the federal government. The act authorized the collection of
revenues for 15 years, ending in 2007, to pay for the authorized cleanup
costs. Revenues to the Fund are derived from (1) an assessment, of up to
$150 million annually, on domestic utilities that used the enriched
uranium produced by DOE's plants for nuclear power generation^7 and (2)
federal government appropriations amounting to the difference between the
authorized funding under the Energy Policy Act and the assessment on
utilities.^8 Congress specified that any unused balances in the Fund were
to be invested in Treasury securities and any interest earned made
available to pay for activities covered under the Fund.

^5GAO, Uranium Enrichment: Analysis of Decontamination and Decommissioning
Scenarios, [12]GAO/RCED-92-77BR (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 1991).

^6 GAO, Comments on Proposed Legislation to Restructure DOE's Uranium
Enrichment Program, [13]GAO/T-RCED-92-14 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29,
1991).

^7This assessment is based on a given utility's share of the total enriched
uranium purchased from DOE, including enriched uranium purchased for
defense purposes.

^8The following revenue amounts are authorized: $480 million for fiscal
years 1992-1998; $488.3 million for fiscal years 1999-2001; and $518.2
million for fiscal years 2002-2007. Both domestic utility assessments and
government appropriations are to be adjusted annually for increases in the
consumer price index.

DOE's Office of Environmental Management is responsible for managing the
Fund and plant cleanup activities, which, through fiscal year 2003, were
mostly carried out by DOE contractor Bechtel Jacobs. The department's Oak
Ridge Operations Office in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, had historically provided
day-to-day Fund management and oversight of cleanup activities at all
three plants. In October 2003, however, DOE established a new office in
Lexington, Kentucky, to directly manage the cleanup activities at the
Paducah and Portsmouth plants. The Oak Ridge Operations Office continues
to manage the Fund and the cleanup activities at the Oak Ridge plant.

Currently, the Fund is used to pay for the following activities:

           o Reimbursements to uranium and thorium licensees. The Energy
           Policy Act provides that the Fund be used to reimburse licensees
           of active uranium and thorium processing sites for the portion of
           their decontamination and decommissioning activities, reclamation
           efforts, and other cleanup costs attributable to the uranium and
           thorium they sold to the federal government.^9 From fiscal year
           1994, when the Fund began incurring costs, through fiscal year
           2003, $447 million was used from the Fund for uranium and thorium
           reimbursements (in 2004 dollars).

           o Cleanup activities at the uranium enrichment plants.^10 Cleanup
           activities at the plants include remedial actions, such as
           assessing and treating groundwater or soil contamination; waste
           management activities, such as disposing of contaminated
           materials; the surveillance and maintenance of the plants, such as
           providing security and making general repairs to keep the plants
           in a safe condition; the decontamination and decommissioning of
           inactive facilities by either cleaning them up so they can be
           reused or demolishing them; and other activities, such as covering
           litigation costs at the three plants and supporting site-specific
           advisory boards. From fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2003, a
           total of $2.7 billion from the Fund was used for these cleanup
           activities (in 2004 dollars).
			  
^9The Energy Policy Act authorizes reimbursements to uranium licensees not
to exceed $350 million and reimbursements to the thorium licensee not to
exceed $365 million for the portion of their cleanup costs associated with
the sale of these materials to the federal government. The remaining
unused authorized amounts are adjusted annually based upon the consumer
price index.

^10Cleanup activities are conducted under the requirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA); the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, as amended (CERCLA); and compliance agreements with regulatory
authorities, which include the Environmental Protection Agency and state
regulatory agencies in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

           At Projected Costs and Revenues, the Fund Will Be Insufficient to
			  Complete Cleanup at the Three Plants

           Under a variety of models using DOE's projected costs and
           revenues, the Fund will be insufficient to cover all of its
           authorized activities. Using DOE's projections that 2044 would be
           the most likely date for completion of cleanup at the plants, we
           estimated that cleanup costs would exceed Fund revenues by $3.8
           billion to $6.2 billion (in 2007 dollars).^11 Because DOE had not
           determined when decontamination and decommissioning work would
           begin at the Paducah and Portsmouth plants, and because federal
           contributions to the Fund have been less than the authorized
           amount, we developed several alternative models to assess the
           effects of different assumptions on the Fund's sufficiency.
           Specifically, we developed the following models:

           o Baseline model. This model was developed in consultation with
           DOE and its contractor officials about what the most likely
           cleanup time frames would be and used cost estimates assuming that
           cleanup at all plants would be completed by 2044.

           o Accelerated model. Because DOE had not determined when the final
           decontamination and decommissioning would begin at its Paducah and
           Portsmouth plants, we developed the accelerated model under the
           assumption that cleanup work could be completed faster than under
           the baseline model, given unconstrained funding. DOE and its
           contractor officials provided additional cost estimates, where
           Paducah's final work would begin in 2010 and be completed by 2024
           and Portsmouth's final decontamination and decommissioning work
           would begin in 2007 and be completed by 2024.

           o Deferred model. This model was developed under the assumption
           that, given current funding constraints, it may not be realistic
           for two major decontamination and decommissioning projects to be
           done concurrently. Thus, deferred time frames were determined by
           DOE, assuming that all work would be completed at the Portsmouth
           plant first and then initiated at the Paducah plant. For the
           deferred model, Portsmouth's final decontamination and
           decommissioning work was estimated to be completed from 2010 to
           2037 and Paducah's from 2038 to 2052.

           o Revenue-added model. This model was developed to assess the
           effect of the government's meeting its total authorized annual
           contributions on the balance of the Fund, which by the start of
           fiscal year 2004, was $707 million less than authorized under the
           Energy Policy Act. For the revenue-added model, we used baseline
           time frames but assumed that government contributions to the Fund
           would continue annually at the 2004 authorized level until all
           government contributions as authorized by law had been met, which
           would occur in fiscal year 2009.
			  
^11In our 2004 report, we reported the projected costs in 2004 dollars. For
this testimony, we converted the figures to 2007 dollars.			  

           o Revenue-added-plus-interest model. For this model, we built on
           the revenue-added model to include the effect of forgone interest
           that the Fund could have earned had the government contributed the
           full authorized amount. We assumed that these additional payments
           would be made to the Fund in the same amounts as the 2004 annual
           authorized amount and extended payments through fiscal year 2010.

           Irrespective of which model we used, we found that the Fund would
           be insufficient to cover the projected cleanup costs at the
           uranium enrichment plants (see table 1). At best, assuming no
           additional funding is provided beyond the 2007 authorized amount,
           Fund costs could outweigh revenues by $3.8 billion (in 2007
           dollars). Even with current authorized amounts extended out
           through fiscal year 2010, the Fund could still be insufficient by
           close to $0.46 billion (in 2007 dollars).

Table 1: Fund Balance at Completion of All Cleanup under Different Model
Scenarios

Dollars in                                                                                  
billions                                                                                    
              Baseline  Accelerated      Deferred Revenue-added Revenue-added-plus-interest 
                 model        model         model         model                       model 
Completion                                                                                  
date (fiscal                                                                                
year)             2044         2024          2052          2044                        2044 
Constant 2007 -$6.2 to                                                                      
dollars          -$3.8     -$5.7 to      -$6.8 to      -$5.2 to                             
               (-$5.3) -$4.4(-$5.0)  -$4.4(-$5.7) -$2.0 (-$3.9)      -$4.6 to -$0.46(-$3.0) 
Current         -$18.5                                                                      
dollars       to -$7.6     -$9.8 to     -$26.4 to     -$15.1 to                             
              (-$12.5) -$5.7(-$7.6) -$8.8(-$16.7) -$4.3 (-$9.3)      -$13.3 to -$1.0(-$7.1) 
Present-value -$3.4 to                                 -$2.8 to                             
2007            -$0.84     -$4.2 to      -$3.4 to        -$0.42                             
dollars^a      (-$1.9) -$2.0(-$3.0) -$0.69(-$1.6)       (-$1.4)     -$2.5 to -$0.098(-$1.1) 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.

Note: Fund balances given as range, with mean in parentheses.

^aBecause of the difference in completion dates, a comparison of the Fund
balances in constant 2007 dollars would not be meaningful. To make
comparison of the various models possible, we estimated the present value
of the Fund's balance in 2007 dollars. Because present-value analysis
reflects the time value of money--that costs are worth more if they are
incurred sooner and worth less if they occur in the future--the present
value under the deferral model declines more than in the other options. In
reality, however, the net effect would depend on many other factors. If,
for example, deferral would add substantially to such costs as
safeguarding and security or costs associated with increased health risks,
then the reduction due to adjusting for the time value of money could be
more than offset by increases in other costs.

Although our analysis was able to capture several uncertainties
potentially affecting the Fund--including interest rates, inflation rates,
cost and revenue variances, and the timing of decontamination and
decommissioning--additional uncertainties exist that we could not capture.
These uncertainties included possible changes to the scope of the cleanup;
whether the Fund would be required to pay for additional activities, such
as long-term water monitoring once the plants were closed; and the extent
of potential future litigation costs that the Fund would have to support.
For example, a risk analysis completed by DOE in 2004 for the Paducah
plant indicated that changes in the scope of cleanup could increase
cleanup costs by more than $3 billion and extend the time frame for
cleanup to more than 30 years past the original scheduled date of 2019.^12
In addition, when they developed their cleanup cost estimates, DOE
officials assumed that the costs of long-term stewardship activities--such
as groundwater monitoring, which may continue after all necessary cleanup
costs have been completed--would be covered by a separate funding source.
DOE officials acknowledged, however, that if another funding source were
not available, they may be required to use resources from the Fund.

Uncertainty Over the Extent of the Fund's Insufficiency Remains Because DOE Has
Yet to Issue Plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth Plants

Uncertainty over the extent of the Fund's insufficiency remains because
DOE has not issued plans that identify the most probable time frames and
costs for the decontamination and decommissioning of the Paducah and
Portsmouth plants. DOE was required to develop a report to Congress
containing such information, but because DOE was significantly revising
its cost estimates, it determined the report would not be accurate and did
not finalize it.^13 According to DOE officials, it is now in the process
of finalizing a report that contains new schedule and cost information for
both plants and addresses the sufficiency of the Fund.^14 This report was
due to Congress in October 2007 but has yet to be issued by DOE. Because
the report has not been finalized, DOE officials were unwilling to provide
us with updated information on current schedule and cost estimates. As a
result, we are unable to assess how any new information may affect the
Fund's sufficiency. Until DOE resolves uncertainties surrounding the
plants' cleanup, including when cleanup activities are expected to both
begin and end, it is not possible to more precisely determine the total
funding needed to cover the authorized cleanup activities. If, however,
closure and cleanup time frames extend past the originally projected
schedules at the plants, then the total costs the Fund is authorized to
support may increase, particularly costs for maintenance, safety, and
security activities and other fixed costs that must be maintained until
cleanup work at the plants is complete.

^12This end date does not include final decontamination and decommissioning
of the plant but only the major remedial actions planned at the site.

^13According to the Energy Policy Act, the Secretary of DOE shall provide a
report to Congress at least once every 3 years on progress made under
title XI of the act.

^14According to the Energy Policy Act, the fifth report to Congress was to
contain recommendations by the Secretary for the reauthorization of the
program and Fund under title XI.

In closing, we believe that an extension to the Fund may be necessary to
cover cleanup costs at the nation's three uranium enrichment plants. The
information currently available on the projected costs and revenues
authorized by the Fund suggests that it may be insufficient by up to
several billion dollars. DOE appears to be taking steps to develop new,
detailed time frames and cost estimates for the decontamination and
decommissioning of its uranium enrichment plants. However, until this
detailed information is made available, we cannot assess how DOE's updated
time frames and cost estimates may affect the Fund's sufficiency. As a
result, we believe that DOE should finalize plans for the Paducah and
Portsmouth plants so that it can better determine the extent to which Fund
extensions may be needed. Unless the Fund is extended beyond its current
expiration in 2007, cleanup activities that could not be paid for from the
Fund because of a shortfall may have to be financed entirely by the
federal government and could add an additional fiscal burden at a time
when our government is facing already significant long-term fiscal
challenges.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have at
this time.

Contact and Acknowledgments

For further information, please contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841
or [email protected]. Sherry L. McDonald, Assistant Director; Ellen W. Chu,
Alyssa M. Hundrup, Mehrzad Nadji, and Barbara Timmerman made key
contributions to this statement.

(360912)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. The published product 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.

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 ( [14]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
[15]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
DC 20548

To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: [16]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [17][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [18][email protected] , (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected], (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
DC 20548

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[19]GAO-08-277T .

For more information, contact Robin M. Nazzaro at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].

Highlights of [20]GAO-08-277T , a testimony before the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate

November 15, 2007

URANIUM ENRICHMENT

Extension of Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund May Be Needed to
Cover Projected Cleanup Costs

Cleaning up the nation's three uranium enrichment plants will cost
billions of dollars and could span decades. These plants--located near Oak
Ridge, Tenn.; Paducah, Ky.; and Portsmouth, Ohio--are contaminated with
radioactive and hazardous materials. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act
created the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
(Fund) to pay for plant cleanup. Fund revenues come from an assessment on
domestic utilities and federal government appropriations.

In 2004, GAO reported on the Fund's sufficiency to cover authorized
activities. GAO recommended that Congress consider reauthorizing the Fund
for 3 more years, to 2010, and require the Department of Energy (DOE) to
reassess the Fund's sufficiency before it expired to determine if further
extensions were needed. Because decisions not yet made by DOE could affect
the cost of cleanup and the Fund's sufficiency, GAO also recommended that
DOE develop decontamination and decommissioning plans for the Paducah and
Portsmouth plants that would identify the most probable time frames and
costs for completing the cleanup work.

This testimony is based on GAO's 2004 report. It summarizes the extent to
which the Fund may be sufficient to cover authorized activities and the
status of DOE's progress in developing decontamination and decommissioning
plans for the Paducah and Portsmouth plants.

GAO's analysis showed that the Fund will be insufficient to cover all
authorized activities. Using DOE's estimates for the cleanup costs at the
three plants and current and likely revenue projections, GAO developed a
number of simulation models that factored in annual cost and revenue
projections and uncertainties surrounding inflation rates, costs,
revenues, and the timing of the final cleanup work at the Paducah and
Portsmouth plants. Specifically, GAO's baseline model demonstrated that by
2044, the most likely date for completing all cleanup activities at the
plants, cleanup costs will have exceeded revenues by $3.8 billion to $6.2
billion (in 2007 dollars). Importantly, GAO found that the Fund would be
insufficient irrespective of which estimates were used or what time frames
were assumed.

DOE has not yet issued plans for the decontamination and decommissioning
of the Paducah and Portsmouth plants as GAO recommended. According to DOE
officials, the department is developing a report to Congress that will
contain updated information for both plants. DOE did not make that
information available to GAO, however, and hence GAO was unable to assess
how any new schedule or cost estimates may affect the Fund's sufficiency.
Until DOE issues plans that provide the most probable time frames and
costs for completing decontamination and decommissioning at the Paducah
and Portsmouth plants, it is not possible to more precisely determine the
total funding needed to cover the authorized cleanup activities.

Cleanup Costs Outweigh Fund Revenues

References

Visible links
  11. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-692
  12. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-92-77BR
  13. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-RCED-92-14
  14. http://www.gao.gov/
  15. http://www.gao.gov/
  16. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  17. mailto:[email protected]
  18. mailto:[email protected]
  19. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-277T
  20. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-277T
*** End of document. ***