Nuclear Waste: Uncertainties About Opening Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(Letter Report, 07/16/96, GAO/RCED-96-146).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the proposed opening
of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
in 1998, focusing on how well DOE is positioned to begin filling the
repository in its first few years of operation as well as over the long
term.

GAO found that: (1) it is uncertain whether DOE can accomplish all of
the work needed to comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) regulations for disposing of transuranic waste at WIPP by April
1998; (2) before DOE can submit an application for a certificate of
compliance to EPA, it must resolve various scientific issues; (3) due to
the lack of available transportation containers and equipment at the
storage sites for preparing waste for shipment and disposal, DOE will
have limited disposal capability for the first several years of WIPP
operations; (4) DOE does not expect to start disposing of remote-handled
waste until 2002; and (5) it will cost DOE an estimated $11 billion over
the next several decades to increase the rate at which it emplaces
transuranic waste in WIPP.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-96-146
     TITLE:  Nuclear Waste: Uncertainties About Opening Waste Isolation 
             Pilot Plant
      DATE:  07/16/96
   SUBJECT:  Nuclear waste disposal
             Nuclear waste management
             Radioactive wastes
             Compliance
             Safety regulation
             Safety standards
             Environmental policies
             Environmental monitoring

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed 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.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

July 1996

NUCLEAR WASTE - UNCERTAINTIES
ABOUT OPENING WASTE ISOLATION
PILOT PLANT

GAO/RCED-96-146

Nuclear Waste

(302143)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE - Department of Energy
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  WIPP - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-271790

July 16, 1996

Congressional Requesters

The Department of Energy (DOE) plans to begin, in April 1998, a $19
billion\1 program to permanently dispose of about 176,000 cubic
meters of transuranic\2 waste primarily generated and currently
stored at six facilities.  The waste is to be permanently stored in
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a planned geologic repository
near Carlsbad, New Mexico.  However, DOE must first obtain from the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a certificate of compliance
with its disposal regulations for radioactive waste and meet the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
as amended (RCRA), for handling and disposing of hazardous waste. 

Interested in the feasibility of opening WIPP on DOE's schedule and
the Department's readiness to begin disposal operations, the
requesters asked GAO to assess the prospects for opening WIPP in 1998
and determine how well DOE is positioned to begin filling the
repository in its first few years of operation as well as over the
longer term. 


--------------------
\1 Unless otherwise indicated, all dollars are expressed in constant
1995 dollars. 

\2 Transuranic waste is equipment, scrap materials, and other trash
that is contaminated with radioactive elements, such as plutonium,
having atomic numbers higher than uranium. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

For two reasons, the prospects for opening WIPP by April 1998 are
uncertain.  First, a wide disparity exists between DOE's mid-1995
draft application for a certificate of compliance and EPA's criteria
for reviewing a compliance application.  The application lacked
details on the repository site, on the inventory of anticipated
waste, and on future human activities that could compromise the
capability of the repository to contain the waste; also, the
application did not address many of EPA's compliance criteria. 
Second, as of May 1996, DOE was still working to complete all of the
scientific and technical activities that are essential to the
preparation of a complete compliance application.  To open WIPP on
schedule, DOE needs to submit the application in October 1996;
receive a certificate of compliance from EPA in October 1997; and,
also by October 1997, obtain favorable RCRA-related decisions from
EPA and the state of New Mexico.  DOE, however, is optimistic that it
will obtain all of the required regulatory approvals as planned
because, it says, all remaining work is known, planned, and on
schedule. 

If, as DOE expects, it opens WIPP by mid-1998, it would, for the
first years of operation, dispose of waste at less than the design
rate of the repository.  Disposal operations in these years will be
constrained by the limited number of transportation containers that
are available and the lack of facilities and equipment at current
storage sites for preparing the waste for shipment to and permanent
disposal in WIPP. 

Looking farther into the future, DOE estimates that it will cost
about $11 billion over several decades to develop and operate, at
sites where transuranic waste is now stored, the facilities and
equipment that are needed to prepare transuranic waste for shipment
to and disposal in WIPP.  In addition, the Department expects to
spend almost $8 billion on waste transportation and disposal
operations at WIPP over a 35-year period.  How soon DOE will be able
to bring these facilities on line and operate them at planned rates
depends, to a great extent, upon its ability to obtain funds for
these purposes at a time when the Department faces competing
priorities for limited funds.  Delays in developing these facilities
could force DOE to extend the period for shipping the waste to WIPP
and emplacing the waste in the repository beyond 35 years.  Each
additional year of waste emplacement operations at WIPP could cost
about $130 million. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The production and maintenance of nuclear weapons produces a variety
of waste by-products, including transuranic waste.  DOE is storing
almost 100,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste, primarily at six
sites, and expects to generate another 78,000 cubic meters of the
waste over the next several decades as it cleans up its nuclear
facilities.  About 97 percent of the existing volume of transuranic
waste is stored in standard 55-gallon steel drums and other types of
containers.  This waste, which typically consists of contaminated
equipment, tools, protective clothing, and scrap materials, is called
"contact-handled" waste because it can be handled with limited
precautions to protect workers from radiation.  The remaining volume
of waste is called "remote-handled" waste because it emits higher
levels of penetrating radiation that requires special shielding,
handling, and disposal procedures. 

In 1979, the Congress authorized DOE to develop WIPP expressly to
demonstrate the safe disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from
U.S.  defense activities and programs.\3 By the end of 1988, DOE had
constructed all surface facilities, shafts leading to the underground
disposal area, and 7 of 56 planned disposal rooms.  DOE had not,
however, established a clear link between its scientific program to
conduct underground tests at WIPP with transuranic waste and its
plans to demonstrate compliance with EPA's disposal regulations.\4

In October 1992, the Congress passed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
Land Withdrawal Act.  Among other things, the act authorized DOE to
conduct testing at WIPP with limited quantities of contact-handled
waste after EPA had (1) approved DOE's testing and waste retrieval
plans, (2) issued final disposal regulations for radioactive wastes,
(3) determined DOE's compliance with the terms of EPA's "no
migration" determination, and (4) found that the planned tests would
provide data "directly relevant" to a certification of compliance
with the disposal regulations or with RCRA.  Also, before DOE may
dispose of transuranic waste in WIPP, DOE must apply for and obtain
from EPA a certification of WIPP's compliance with the agency's
disposal regulations.  In conjunction, EPA was required to establish
the criteria for issuing a certificate of compliance to DOE. 
Finally, DOE may not begin disposing of waste in WIPP until 180 days
after it has received a compliance certificate from EPA. 

DOE must also meet the requirements for disposing of hazardous wastes
as defined under RCRA because, the Department estimates, over 60
percent of its stored transuranic waste also contains hazardous
waste.  The land disposal restrictions in EPA's regulations
implementing RCRA generally prohibit the disposal of untreated
hazardous waste unless the agency makes a "no migration"
determination.  To receive such a determination for WIPP, DOE must
demonstrate that there will be essentially no migration of hazardous
waste from the repository's boundary for as long as the waste remains
hazardous.  Also, because New Mexico is authorized by EPA to carry
out a state RCRA program, DOE must obtain a permit from New Mexico
for the design, maintenance, operation, and closure of WIPP.  If DOE
meets New Mexico's requirements, the state expects to issue a draft
permit for public comment by late summer 1996 and a final permit by
June 1997.\5 In addition to these key requirements, DOE must comply
with other applicable federal environmental laws, such as the Federal
Facility Compliance Act of 1992, which pertains to the treatment and
disposal of waste at the sites where the waste is stored and/or
generated. 

In 1993, DOE and EPA concentrated on the details of the planned waste
disposal tests at WIPP and the relevance of the tests to a future
compliance determination.  At that time, DOE expected to complete the
tests, apply for and receive a compliance certificate, and begin
disposing of waste in the repository in 2000.  In October 1993,
however, DOE announced that by substituting waste tests conducted in
laboratories for the planned tests in WIPP, it could open the
repository 2 years earlier.  The accelerated schedule has created a
more dynamic, higher-risk environment for completing preparations for
both the compliance application and disposal operations because more
interdependent activities had to be conducted in parallel, rather
than in sequence, with little time available to make adjustments on
the basis of the results of individual activities. 


--------------------
\3 Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications
of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980 (P.L.  96-164). 

\4 For a discussion of this issue, see Nuclear Waste:  Change in Test
Strategy Sound, but DOE Overstated Savings (GAO/RCED-95-44, Dec.  27,
1994). 

\5 The permit is jointly issued by New Mexico and EPA's Region VI
office because EPA also has certain RCRA responsibilities. 


   PROSPECTS FOR OPENING WIPP IN
   MID-1998 ARE UNCERTAIN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

It is unclear whether DOE can accomplish all of the work needed to
comply with EPA's regulations for disposing of transuranic waste at
WIPP on a schedule that would enable the Department to open the
repository in April 1998.  (See fig.  1 for DOE's most recent
schedule.) One reason is the disparity between the contents of DOE's
draft application for a certificate of compliance and EPA's disposal
regulations and the related criteria for deciding whether to issue
the certificate.  In addition, DOE was in the process of analyzing
the results of the completed and ongoing scientific research that is
to feed into the compliance application before it can submit a
complete application. 

   Figure 1:  DOE's Schedule for
   Opening WIPP

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note a:  DOE submitted the draft application to EPA in two parts: 
one in March 1995 and the remaining part in July 1995. 

Source:  GAO's presentation of data from DOE's Carlsbad Area Office. 


      DISPARITY BETWEEN DRAFT
      APPLICATION AND REGULATORY
      REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

DOE, in its 1995 draft application, did not address many of EPA's
compliance criteria.  This situation occurred, in part, because DOE
submitted the draft application to EPA shortly after the agency had
issued its proposed criteria for public comment in January 1995, well
before EPA issued the final criteria in February 1996.\6

Although the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act required EPA to issue the final
criteria within 2 years of its enactment, or by October 30, 1994, the
delay in issuing the criteria occurred, in part, because of the
agency's emphasis in 1993 on reviewing DOE's plans for the tests with
waste at WIPP and on issuing the agency's disposal regulations.  In
addition, according to the director of EPA's WIPP program, the agency
took some additional time to complete the criteria so that it could
ensure that the public had an adequate opportunity to participate in
developing the criteria.  When DOE eliminated the proposed tests in
the WIPP underground, however, timely issuance of the compliance
criteria became important to achieving DOE's accelerated timetable
for opening WIPP. 

In April 1994, when DOE announced that it planned to begin operating
WIPP in mid-1998, it assumed that EPA would issue the final
compliance criteria in January 1995 and that DOE would submit a draft
compliance application to EPA 2 months later.  EPA, however, did not
issue the proposed criteria for public comment until January 1995
and, at that time, estimated that it would take at least 1 year to
issue the final criteria.  Nevertheless, DOE submitted part of its
draft compliance application to EPA in March 1995 and the remaining
part of the application 4 months later. 

DOE recognized and informed EPA, the state of New Mexico, and other
parties that its draft application was incomplete but sought these
parties' comments to help it prepare to submit its final compliance
application in December 1996 and receive a certificate of compliance
1 year later.  (In October 1995, DOE amended its schedule, including
moving the planned date for submitting its final application to
October 1996.) In remarks prefacing the draft application, DOE noted
that because EPA had issued the proposed compliance criteria a few
months earlier, the Department was not able to follow all of the
criteria in preparing the draft application.  DOE also noted that the
draft application did not include details on many of the subjects
addressed in the draft criteria.  Among other things, these subjects
included the results of experiments in progress to support the final
calculations on WIPP's performance as a repository, information on
the potential barriers to the release of the waste materials from the
repository, seals for the shafts leading from the surface to the
underground area, and the active institutional controls planned for
the site after the repository is closed.  Finally, DOE stated that
its draft application did not contain analyses demonstrating that
WIPP could meet the requirements of EPA's disposal regulations for
protecting groundwater from radioactive materials. 

In January 1996, after reviewing the draft application, EPA advised
DOE that the application lacked the necessary detail for an
appropriate and thorough review for technical adequacy.  Although the
agency refrained from commenting on the draft application's
completeness, it provided DOE with over 370 detailed comments on
apparent deficiencies in the application.  For example, the agency
said the application lacked the necessary detail on the
characteristics of the WIPP site, the waste to be disposed of in the
repository, and barriers to the release of radioactive materials from
the repository that DOE might engineer to enhance the repository's
performance.  (See app.  I for examples of the deficiencies in DOE's
draft application that were observed by EPA and New Mexico's
Environmental Evaluation Group.\7 )

Other parties that are likely to provide comments to EPA on DOE's
application for a certificate of compliance also expressed concern
that DOE's draft application was incomplete.  The 1992 WIPP Land
Withdrawal Act provided special status to New Mexico, the
Environmental Evaluation Group, and the National Academy of Sciences. 
The act required DOE to provide these parties with free and timely
access to the data on health, safety, or environmental protection
issues at WIPP and authorized the parties to evaluate and publish
analyses of DOE's regulatory compliance activities.  In a March 1996
report, the Environmental Evaluation Group stated that the draft
application could not be considered an adequate draft document for
demonstrating compliance with EPA's disposal regulations because the
application lacked substantial features that would be expected in the
final application.\8 According to the Group, the document resembled
the framework rather than a draft of an application because it lacked
a logical presentation of the proofs of compliance with EPA's
disposal regulations.  Even the most basic information, the Group
said, is absent from the draft application. 

Among other deficiencies, the Environmental Evaluation Group stated,
the application did not adequately describe the waste that DOE would
dispose of in WIPP or discuss the problems that the Department had
been encountering in documenting the physical, chemical, and
radiological characteristics of this waste.  Thus, the Group pointed
out, the assessments of the repository's performance described in the
application were based on "assumed" rather than actual
characteristics of the waste. 

In October 1995, New Mexico also commented to EPA on DOE's draft
application.  In many cases, the state said, information was either
lacking or so preliminary that the state could not meaningfully
comment on DOE's treatment of various issues. 

Moreover, EPA's final criteria contained provisions that DOE, in
commenting on the draft criteria, had objected to and other
provisions that were not in the agency's draft criteria.  DOE will
have to address these provisions in its final application.  One
example concerns the assumptions that DOE must use in addressing the
likelihood and possible types of human intrusion at WIPP, such as
mining and drilling.  EPA's final criteria established assumptions
about the types and frequency of mining and drilling that DOE will
have to use in its final application.  What the appropriate
assumptions are had been an area of contention among DOE, EPA, and
others, including the Environmental Evaluation Group.  For this
reason and because DOE has not yet addressed the issue of human
intrusion in accordance with EPA's final criteria, the Department's
analyses of the mining and drilling issues in its final application
are likely to receive close review by EPA and other parties who may
be commenting on the application. 


--------------------
\6 In April 1996, New Mexico filed a petition in the U.S.  Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, for judicial review of
EPA's compliance criteria on the basis that the agency, in issuing
the criteria, had committed ".  .  .  multiple violations of the
principles of notice-and-comment rulemaking.  .  .  ." The alleged
violations include "major" changes to the final rule made after the
end of the public comment period and based on data and information
not disclosed during the comment period.  New Mexico v.  EPA, No. 
96-1107 (D.C.  Cir.  filed Apr.  8, 1996).  Similar petitions were
filed that month by other parties, including the state of Texas. 

\7 The Environmental Evaluation Group, established in 1978 as an
interdisciplinary group of scientists and engineers to perform an
independent technical evaluation of the WIPP project on behalf of the
state of New Mexico, is funded by DOE. 

\8 Review of the WIPP Draft Application to Show Compliance With EPA
Transuranic Waste Disposal Standards (EEG-61, Mar.  1996). 


      SCIENTIFIC WORK INCOMPLETE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

DOE will have to resolve many issues over the next several months if
it is to submit, by October 1996, an application for a certificate of
compliance that will withstand the scrutiny of EPA, which will
review, and other parties, which may comment on, the completeness and
quality of the application.  According to the Assistant Manager for
Regulatory Compliance at DOE's Carlsbad Area Office, the Department
was making substantial progress toward completing an application for
a certificate of compliance on schedule.  In addition, the director
of EPA's Radiation Protection Division said that DOE is giving
priority to issues the agency raised in its review of the draft
application. 

Whether DOE can successfully resolve the outstanding issues in the
next few months is uncertain because DOE's final technical positions
on WIPP have been evolving since the submission to EPA of the draft
compliance certification application.  According to the assistant
manager for regulatory compliance in DOE's Carlsbad Area Office, the
Department intends to send EPA sections of its final application for
early review and comment over the next several months to facilitate
EPA's review of the completeness of the application when DOE submits
the application to EPA in October 1996.  The assistant manager also
stated that the application will document DOE's current technical
positions on WIPP.  As of early May 1996, the Director of EPA's WIPP
Center told us that the EPA staff had received one section of the
application dealing with the site's characteristics and geological
features. 

However, for sections of the final application that document DOE's
compliance with the disposal regulations, DOE was making the final
decisions about the details of the conceptual and computational
models that it will use to simulate and assess the performance of the
repository over the required 10,000-year period.  The performance
assessment is critical to demonstrating that neither radioactive nor
hazardous materials will migrate from the repository's boundary.  At
the same time, DOE was feeding the current results from completed and
ongoing research projects into the performance assessment
calculations, parts of which have already begun. 

In addition, to satisfy EPA's compliance criteria, DOE is
implementing a program to ensure that its key scientific and
regulatory compliance programs and activities meet generally accepted
standards of quality in the nuclear industry.  Some of the data DOE
has collected predate the Department's adoption of the quality
standards that EPA has prescribed in its final compliance criteria. 
Therefore, DOE is now attempting to demonstrate, using the procedures
permitted by the criteria, that the data to be used in the compliance
application, which the Department collected before it implemented the
required quality assurance program, meet the quality assurance
standards for existing data.  According to DOE's Carlsbad Area
Office, about 10 percent of the data that the Department collected in
prior years would, to the extent that the data are used to support
the final WIPP compliance analysis, have to be qualified by either of
two approaches.  The first approach is to demonstrate that the data
were collected under standards that were equivalent to DOE's current
quality assurance program.  The second approach is to use alternative
means of qualification, such as peer review, that are permitted by
EPA.  These officials added that the qualification work is currently
on schedule to support the submission of the final application to
EPA. 

Finally, in February 1995, DOE asked the National Academy of
Sciences' Committee on WIPP to evaluate the key scientific studies
and modeling supporting DOE's ongoing assessments of the repository's
performance.  The Committee's study would provide DOE with feedback
on several important aspects of the assessment program, such as the
hydrology of the rock formations where the repository is situated,
the use of peer review and expert judgment in DOE's scientific
program, and studies of the potential effects on the repository's
performance of gases that might be generated from waste materials. 
As of May 1996, the Committee anticipated issuing its report late in
July of 1996.  Officials at DOE's Carlsbad office stated that until
they have received and reviewed the Committee's report, they do not
know what actions they might have to take if the Committee finds
deficiencies in DOE's research program or recommends that DOE perform
additional research.  Moreover, DOE has already cut back the scope of
its research program, and by the time the Committee releases its
report, DOE expects to be nearly finished with its calculations of
WIPP's compliance with EPA's disposal regulations. 


   DOE WILL HAVE LIMITED DISPOSAL
   CAPABILITY IN THE FIRST YEARS
   OF WIPP'S OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

For the first several years of WIPP's operations, DOE expects to
dispose of contact-handled waste at less than one quarter of the
design disposal rate of the repository.  The disposal operations in
these years will be constrained by the number of transportation
containers that are available and the lack of facilities and
equipment at the storage sites for preparing waste for shipment and
disposal.  DOE does not expect to begin disposing of remote-handled
waste until 2002. 

DOE estimates that it has about 97,000 cubic meters of
contact-handled transuranic waste in storage and projects that it
will generate almost 56,000 cubic meters more of this waste.  (See
table 1.) More than 98 percent of the total anticipated volume of
contact-handled waste is stored or will be generated at six
facilities. 



                                Table 1
                
                   Existing and Projected Volumes of
                   Contact-Handled Transuranic Waste

                           (In cubic meters)

Storage site                      Existing     Projected         Total
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Hanford, Washington                 11,028        34,909        45,937
Idaho                             64,158\a             0        64,158
Los Alamos, New Mexico              10,953         7,351        18,304
Oak Ridge, Tennessee                 1,326           256         1,582
Rocky Flats, Colorado                1,869         3,205         5,074
Savannah River, South                6,551         8,946        15,497
 Carolina
======================================================================
Subtotal 9                         5,885 5       4,667 1        50,552
All others                           1,160         1,241         2,401
======================================================================
Total                               97,045        55,908       152,953
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes 24,903 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste that
is contaminated with transuranic elements and is commingled with
contact-handled transuranic waste stored at the site.  DOE intends to
treat both the low-level and transuranic waste in a treatment
facility and then dispose of the residual waste in WIPP. 

Source:  GAO's presentation of data from the Transuranic Waste
Baseline Inventory Report, Revision 2 (DOE/CAO-95-1121, Dec.  1995). 

DOE's Carlsbad Area Office plans to ship contact-handled waste to
WIPP from the Idaho, Rocky Flats, and Los Alamos sites in 1998 and
from the Savannah River site in 1999.  Thereafter, the office may
also make shipments from other storage sites.  The office expects to
make almost 1,300 shipments to WIPP at an accelerating rate over the
approximately 5-year period ending December 31, 2002.  (See table 2.)
During that same period, the repository is expected to be
operationally capable of receiving and disposing of over 1,900
shipments of waste.  Thus, the planned disposal rate is about
two-thirds of the expected capability to dispose of waste in WIPP
through 2002. 



                                Table 2
                
                  Planned Shipments to and Operational
                   Capabilities of WIPP Through 2002

                         (Number of shipments)

                                   Planned   Operational        Unused
Year                             shipments    capability    capability
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
1998                                    64            64             0
1999                                   198           200             2
2000                                   197           350           153
2001                                   425           566           141
2002                                   412           740           328
======================================================================
Total                                1,296         1,920           624
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's presentation of data from DOE's Carlsbad Area Office. 

One constraint on DOE's initial disposal capability is the number of
available transportation containers.  Several years ago, when DOE
expected to begin operating WIPP earlier as a test facility, the
Department procured 15 containers for transporting contact-handled
waste.  Since then, DOE has concentrated its budget for WIPP on the
scientific and technical issues that need to be resolved to
demonstrate compliance with EPA's disposal regulations and has not
procured additional containers.  DOE expects to acquire more
containers in 2000--enough to make 10 shipments per week to WIPP by
the end of that year--and to have a total of 60 containers by
2002--enough to make 17 shipments per week. 

A second operational constraint is the extent to which DOE's storage
sites are limited in their ability to prepare contact-handled waste
for shipment and disposal.  Waste managers at each site must be able
to (1) retrieve the waste and put it in temporary storage areas; (2)
characterize, or identify the constituents of, the waste; (3)
identify the waste that meets the criteria for shipping and disposal;
(4) treat the waste, as necessary, to make it suitable for shipment
and disposal; and (5) package the waste for shipment and load the
transportation containers onto transport vehicles.  At present,
according to DOE's Carlsbad Area Office, only the Idaho and Rocky
Flats sites are capable of completing these steps for a limited
amount--about 4,500 cubic meters--of the existing 97,000 cubic meters
of contact-handled waste. 

Each of DOE's major storage sites needs facilities for
characterizing, repackaging, treating, and/or loading waste for
transportation.  At some sites, waste managers are taking interim
measures, such as identifying the waste that does not require
treatment, to prepare enough waste for shipment and disposal to meet
the Department's obligations for managing wastes under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act and its schedule for opening WIPP.  At Los
Alamos, for example, waste managers expect to have mobile
characterization and transportation loading equipment in place by
1998; therefore, DOE's Carlsbad office estimates that the site may
have about 600 cubic meters of waste ready to ship in 1998.  If funds
are made available for the necessary equipment at the Rocky Flats
site, the site's waste managers expect to have about 1,000 cubic
meters of waste ready for shipment and disposal in 1998.  (See app. 
II for a discussion of each of the six major storage sites.)

In connection with the Idaho site, DOE recently agreed, in a
settlement of litigation with Idaho, to ship 3,100 cubic
meters--about 15,000 drums--of contact-handled waste from Idaho by
the end of 2002.  Making two shipments a week from this facility--up
to about 4,370 drums of waste per year--could enable DOE to meet its
agreement with the state.  It is uncertain, however, if DOE will be
able to prepare the waste for shipment at that rate.  As recently as
September 1995, site officials estimated that they would have only
about 700 drums of waste ready by June 1998.  Since then, however,
these officials have reinterpreted DOE's criteria covering the
requirements that waste must meet to qualify for shipment to and
disposal in WIPP.  As a result, they now expect that by mid-1998 they
will be able to certify that at least 2,000 drums of waste meet all
of the criteria for shipment and disposal and that subsequently they
will be able to certify another 3,500 drums per year. 

For remote-handled waste, DOE does not expect to have the essential
facilities and equipment in place for preparing and shipping the
waste to WIPP until at least 2002.  Most of the stored waste is at
Oak Ridge, but DOE expects to generate much more of this waste at its
Hanford site (see table 3). 



                                Table 3
                
                   Existing and Projected Volumes of
                    Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste

                           (In cubic meters)

Storage site                      Existing     Projected         Total
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Hanford                                201        21,521        21,722
Idaho                                  200             0           200
Los Alamos                              93            34           127
Oak Ridge                            1,832           344         2,176
Rocky Flats                              0             0             0
Savannah River                           0             0             0
======================================================================
Subtotal                             2,326        21,899        24,225
All other sites                        608            34           642
======================================================================
Total                                2,934        21,933        24,867
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO's presentation of data from the Transuranic Waste
Baseline Inventory Report, Revision 2. 

DOE's schedule for disposing of remote-handled waste may present an
operational problem at WIPP, particularly if DOE is unable to begin
disposing of the waste at Hanford for many years.  By 2002, at the
earliest, DOE may have a new facility at its Oak Ridge site that is
ready to begin retrieving and preparing almost 800 cubic meters of
remote-handled sludge for disposal in WIPP.  The Department has no
firm plans, however, for when and how it will prepare to recover,
treat, and dispose of the remaining remote-handled waste at Oak
Ridge.  At Hanford, moreover, site officials do not have plans for
preparing remote-handled waste for disposal; however, they expect to
begin disposing of this waste within 20 years.  The latter waste will
largely consist of equipment that is now part of the system of
underground tanks that store high-level radioactive waste from the
earlier production of plutonium at the site.  Currently, site
officials expect that most of the remote-handled waste may eventually
be decontaminated and disposed of at the site and that only about
3,470 cubic meters of this waste will be shipped to and disposed of
in WIPP.  DOE is negotiating milestones that will affect the shipment
of transuranic waste with the state of Washington and EPA. 

DOE designed WIPP so that remote-handled waste would be disposed of
in the walls of storage rooms before contact-handled waste is placed
in these rooms.  Because of the delay in disposing of remote-handled
waste, less of the repository's storage area will be available when
DOE is ready to dispose of this waste.  According to DOE's manager of
remote-handled waste, the Department is reviewing alternatives that
would make up for the loss of disposal space for remote-handled waste
in the initial years of WIPP's operations.  He added that an
alternative would not be ready in time for inclusion in DOE's
compliance application to EPA; therefore, if DOE wants to pursue an
alternative disposal approach, it would seek an amendment to the
compliance certificate after WIPP opens.  Moreover, if DOE is not
able to dispose of all of the remote-handled waste within the walls
of the waste-storage rooms for contact-handled waste, it may have to
mine new storage areas in the repository specifically for disposing
of remote-handled waste.  This effort would increase the cost of
operating the repository. 


   DOE NEEDS NEW FACILITIES AND
   EQUIPMENT TO ACHIEVE
   ANTICIPATED DISPOSAL RATE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

Looking beyond the first few years of WIPP's operations to the 25- to
35-year\9 period over which DOE expects to ship waste to WIPP and
emplace the waste in the repository for permanent disposal, DOE will
not be able to significantly increase the rate at which it emplaces
transuranic waste in WIPP until it has (1) developed the facilities
and equipment at each site for retrieving, processing, and packaging
the waste for shipment and (2) procured more numbers and varieties of
transportation containers.  In a 1995 report projecting the potential
costs of cleaning up its nuclear sites, DOE estimated that the
required investment in facilities and containers for transuranic
waste and related operations over several decades will cost more than
$11 billion.\10 In addition, DOE estimated that the waste
transportation and disposal operations at WIPP could cost almost $8
billion, for a total cost of about $19 billion to manage and dispose
of transuranic waste.  According to DOE's Carlsbad Area Office, a
1996 updated version of the baseline cost report now being prepared
will increase the estimated cost to about $29 billion. 

The Idaho site illustrates the need for DOE to develop the ability to
characterize, treat as necessary, and prepare larger quantities of
waste for shipment before it can begin to make significant headway in
disposing of the contact-handled waste stored at the site.  Officials
at that site estimate that about 58 percent of the waste is stored in
boxes that are incompatible with existing waste characterization
facilities.  Other major storage sites, except for Los Alamos, are in
similar situations. 

DOE will also need to develop other types of transportation
containers for much of its contact-handled waste.  DOE estimates that
about 26 percent of the waste can be efficiently transported in the
existing type of container.  About 41 percent of the waste is
expected to be too heavy for efficient transport in the existing type
of container.  DOE plans to develop and procure new containers for
this waste.  DOE has not yet decided how it will transport the
remaining amount of contact-handled waste. 

How soon DOE can bring these essential facilities and equipment on
line and operate them depends upon the availability of funds at a
time when DOE faces significant competing priorities for limited
funds.  For fiscal years 1996 through 2000, DOE expects to reduce its
overall budget by more than $14 billion when compared with earlier
budget projections.  This reduction includes $4.4 billion in its
environmental management programs. 

It is unclear what the precise implications of DOE's planned or other
budget reduction proposals are for the timing and extent of WIPP's
operation and for DOE's ability to prepare the existing and projected
inventories of waste for shipment to and disposal at WIPP.  Tighter
future budgets could further restrain DOE's ability to prepare, ship,
and dispose of transuranic waste at the planned rates.  In these
circumstances, WIPP is likely to remain open, at a less-than-optimal
operating level, for many years beyond the currently planned
operating life of 35 years.  According to DOE's estimate of the
annual cost to operate WIPP, each additional year that DOE must
operate the repository could cost about $130 million. 


--------------------
\9 The stated operating life of WIPP varies among DOE documents. 
DOE's 1995 draft safety analysis report for WIPP and application to
New Mexico for a RCRA permit both state that the design operating
life of WIPP is 25 years but could be extended if necessary. 
However, the 1994 and 1995 strategic plans for WIPP and some other
documents prepared by DOE refer to an operating life of 35 years or
more. 

\10 Estimating the Cold War Mortgage:  The 1995 Baseline
Environmental Management Report (DOE/EM-0232, Mar.  1995). 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided a draft of our report to DOE and EPA for their review and
comment.  DOE provided written comments on this report, which appear
in appendix III.  We also met with the Directors of EPA's Division of
Radiation Protection and WIPP Center (within the agency's Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air) and the agency's Engineer Director, Permit
and States Program Division, Office of Solid Waste, to obtain their
comments on this report. 

DOE said the tone of our draft report was pessimistic, while the
Department is optimistic about its transuranic waste management
program.  DOE is optimistic, it said, because all work is known,
planned, and on schedule; the success rate in accomplishing scheduled
activities and milestones is 100 percent.  Specifically, DOE pointed
to its filing of a draft compliance application with EPA as evidence
of the success of its strategy to achieve the maximum amount of input
to the final application.  We recognized in our report that DOE had
met its past milestones, such as submitting a draft compliance
application to EPA, for opening WIPP.  In our view, however, the
effectiveness of the Department's efforts to open WIPP depends on its
ability to submit an application for a compliance certificate to EPA
that is of sufficient completeness and quality to enable the agency
to issue a certificate to DOE within the 1-year period specified in
the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.  Whether DOE will meet this requirement
remains to be seen. 

DOE also said our draft report failed to recognize that its plans to
bring WIPP to full operation meet the resource needs of the
Department and exceed all requirements at the storage sites that stem
from agreements between DOE and the states.  If, over the first 5
years of WIPP's operation, DOE is successful in shipping and
disposing of the quantities of waste currently planned, then it
should meet the short-term requirements of the sites where the waste
is stored.  As our report discusses, however, there is some
uncertainty about the Department's ability to meet its short-term
disposal objectives and even greater uncertainty over the long term. 
For example, tight budgets in future years could restrain DOE's
ability to dispose of transuranic waste at currently planned rates. 

Finally, DOE provided other specific clarifying comments that we
incorporated as appropriate. 

The EPA officials agreed with our report and suggested changes
intended to clarify the agency's role and authority in regulating
WIPP.  We incorporated these suggested changes in the report as
appropriate. 

We performed our review at WIPP and at the offices of DOE and the
state of New Mexico in Albuquerque, Carlsbad, and Santa Fe.  We also
visited DOE's storage sites for transuranic waste in Colorado, Idaho,
Tennessee, and Washington.  Finally, we also performed our review at
the headquarters of DOE and EPA in Washington, D.C.  We conducted our
review from June 1995 through May 1996 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.  (See app.  IV for details of
our scope and methodology.)


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to the appropriate congressional committees; the
Secretary of Energy; the Administrator of EPA; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget.  We will also make copies available
to others on request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions.  The major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V. 

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues


List of Requesters

The Honorable Floyd D.  Spence
Chairman, Committee on National Security
House of Representatives

The Honorable Don Young
Chairman, Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Schaefer
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Jon Kyl
United States Senate

The Honorable Michael Bilirakis
House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael D.  Crapo
House of Representatives

The Honorable J.  Dennis Hastert
House of Representatives

The Honorable Jon Kyl
United States Senate

The Honorable Carlos J.  Moorhead
House of Representatives


EXAMPLES OF THE GAP BETWEEN EPA'S
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND DOE'S
EFFORTS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

Before the Department of Energy (DOE) can dispose of transuranic
waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), it must obtain,
among other things, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
certification that the repository will comply with the agency's
regulations for disposing of transuranic waste in WIPP.  The disposal
regulations specify the requirements for containing the waste,
protecting individuals and groundwater from radiation, and providing
additional assurances to reduce the likelihood of a release of
radiation from the repository.  As mandated by the Land Withdrawal
Act of 1992, EPA developed the compliance criteria to clarify the
requirements of the disposal regulations and required DOE to provide
the agency with specific types of information in the Department's
compliance application.  The compliance criteria implement the
containment, individual protection, groundwater protection, and
assurance requirements of the disposal regulations.  In addition, the
criteria contain public participation requirements describing how the
agency will involve the public in the certification rulemaking
process and general requirements covering subjects such as the extent
to which the waste needs to be characterized (analyzed to determine
its contents) before it is disposed of, guidance on the computer
models and codes that simulate the repository's performance, and
demonstrations that the data and assumptions developed by DOE have
been adequately peer reviewed. 

According to EPA and others, DOE's mid-1995 draft application for a
certificate of compliance did not include sufficient detail to
address the elements of the agency's disposal regulations and
proposed criteria of January 1995.  Also, the final compliance
criteria of February 1996 contained provisions that either DOE had
objected to in commenting on the draft criteria or that EPA had not
included in the draft criteria. 


   CONTAINMENT OF WASTE IN THE
   REPOSITORY
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

EPA commented that DOE's draft application lacked adequate technical
information and emphasis on the capability of the repository site to
adequately isolate the waste from the surrounding environment.  For
example, EPA noted that although the application described the
geology of the site, the application did not show how this
information has been transformed into the mathematical models that
are used to assess how the repository would perform over the
10,000-year period covered by the containment requirements of the
disposal regulations.  EPA also raised questions about the hydrology
of the site.  The agency said, for example, that it appeared that the
hydrologic properties of the Dewey Lake rock formation--a layer of
rock between the surface of the site and the underground
repository--are not well documented and that additional study of that
formation may be warranted before it can be ruled out as a potential
pathway for contaminants to escape the repository area. 


   ENGINEERED BARRIERS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

In commenting on DOE's draft application, EPA stated that the
application contained only a limited discussion of how DOE might use
engineered barriers to develop adequate confidence that WIPP would
comply with the agency's disposal regulations.\1 For its part, DOE
believes that the agency's interest in engineered barriers goes
beyond what is necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
regulations.  New Mexico's Environmental Evaluation Group has sided
with EPA because, in the Group's view, DOE has not adequately
considered the advantages of engineered barriers in the repository. 
Subsequently, DOE decided that it will use additional engineered
barriers at WIPP to comply with EPA's disposal regulations.  The
effectiveness of the planned engineered barriers will be addressed by
DOE in its final compliance application and by EPA and others in
their reviews of the application. 

EPA's proposed and final compliance criteria include provisions that
implement its assurance requirement on engineered barriers.  EPA is
requiring DOE to study the available options for engineered barriers
at WIPP and submit this study as part of its compliance application. 
Consistent with this requirement and the containment requirements in
the agency's disposal regulations, DOE must analyze the performance
of the complete disposal system, including any planned engineered
barriers, and EPA must consider this analysis when evaluating
compliance with both the containment and assurance requirements.  EPA
stipulated that DOE must evaluate the benefits and detriments of
engineered barrier alternatives and consider specific factors, such
as the effectiveness of the barriers in preventing or substantially
delaying the movement of radioactive contaminants to the accessible
environment and the effect of the barriers on the total costs of
disposal.  Also, EPA is requiring DOE to study and describe any
engineered barrier(s) for existing waste that is already packaged,
not yet packaged, or in need of re-packaging and, to the extent
practicable, waste to be generated in the future. 

During EPA's rulemaking on its proposed compliance criteria, DOE
objected to the proposed requirements related to engineered barriers
because, in the Department's view, the requirements have no basis
within the agency's disposal regulations.  DOE was concerned that the
engineered barrier requirements would make the agency's regulations
more stringent than the agency had intended when it developed the
regulations and could be interpreted as requiring barriers beyond
those necessary to demonstrate a "reasonable expectation" of
compliance with the regulations. 

Before EPA issued the proposed compliance criteria in January 1995,
DOE had informally agreed with EPA to study engineered barriers. 
After EPA included the requirement for the study of engineered
barriers in its proposed criteria, DOE questioned why the agency
needed to prescribe the study in its regulations when the Department
had already begun to perform the study.  DOE also questioned the role
the study would have in EPA's process for considering DOE's
application for a certificate of compliance, because the performance
of such a study was not a part of the basis for developing the
regulations.  DOE added that it intended to use this study to make
decisions about the need for additional engineered barriers to meet
EPA's assurance requirements.  The study would not, DOE said, aid in
the selection of the engineered barriers needed to comply with EPA's
containment requirements.  Finally, although the Department generally
agreed with EPA's approach of assessing the benefits and detriments
of engineered barriers, it expressed concern that the proposed
criteria provided no meaningful basis for selecting engineered
barriers other than the outcome of the benefit/detriment analysis. 

In September 1995, DOE released its engineered barrier study.  The
study, according to officials of DOE's Carlsbad Area Office,
evaluated the types, applicability, cost, and benefit of using
engineered barriers at WIPP.  DOE concluded from the study that
engineered barriers, other than planned shaft seals, would be of
little benefit in demonstrating that WIPP complies with EPA's
disposal regulations.  Therefore, the Carlsbad office decided to use
only those engineered barriers that it believed were necessary to
appreciably add to the assurance of compliance with EPA's disposal
regulations and/or to meet other specific regulatory requirements. 

According to officials of EPA's WIPP Center, the agency expects to
complete its review of DOE's study in June 1996.  EPA, however, noted
that it will not be evaluating the merits of DOE's engineered barrier
study as a "stand alone" effort but, rather, in the context of DOE's
total compliance application submission.  Because DOE has not
finished its final compliance calculations and associated sensitivity
analyses, it is too early to tell what the relative contribution of
the barriers studied by DOE will have on EPA's compliance
determination or if the contribution would appreciably enhance
confidence in DOE's final results. 

New Mexico's Environmental Evaluation Group has been critical of
DOE's consideration of engineered barriers at WIPP.  The Group
disagrees with DOE's position that EPA's compliance criteria impose
additional requirements on DOE.  In the Group's view, the criteria
provide a basis for DOE to select or reject various engineered
barrier alternatives.  The Group also maintains that DOE's definition
of an "engineered barrier," as stated in the Department's draft
compliance application, is inconsistent with the definitions used by
other agencies, such as the definition the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission uses in connection with DOE's proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.  According to the Group, although DOE repeatedly
stated in its draft application that it will use "multiple barriers"
at WIPP, the only barriers that DOE is known to be planning are seals
for the shafts leading to the underground repository.  The Group
called DOE's effort a "minimal" approach and pointed out that on the
Yucca Mountain repository project, the Commission does not consider
shaft seals to be an engineered barrier.  The Group also believes
that DOE's essentially sole reliance on the calculations for the
repository's performance to decide whether or not to implement
engineered barriers at WIPP is contrary to the well-established
principle within the nuclear industry of multiple and redundant
barriers to isolate nuclear materials. 

Finally, the Group has urged DOE to backfill the waste-filled storage
rooms and tunnels with crushed salt that was mined from the
underground repository and is now stored on the surface.  The Group
believes that backfilling the repository can serve useful purposes,
such as reducing the generation of gases and minimizing settlement
and fracturing in the rock formations overlying the repository. 

In April 1996, an assistant manager of DOE's Carlsbad Area Office
told us that the Department has decided to follow the Group's
recommendation.  DOE will, he said, place bags of magnesium oxide
around the sides and over the top of the containers of waste in
underground storage rooms at WIPP.  This approach, he added, will
control gas formation in the repository and reduce the possibility
that harmful transuranic materials might become dissolved in brine
that could seep into and then out of the repository and find its way
into the groundwater.  According to the Group's deputy director, in
May 1996 the Group was in the process of discussing the backfill
issue with DOE's Carlsbad office but had not yet decided whether to
fully support DOE's choice of backfill material. 


--------------------
\1 EPA, in its disposal regulations, defines a barrier as any
material or structure that prevents or substantially delays the
movement of water or radionuclides toward the accessible environment. 
Barriers may be natural, such as the rock formation in which WIPP is
located, or engineered, such as a waste container, material placed
over and around waste containers, or a waste form having special
physical and/or chemical characteristics.  To qualify as an
engineered barrier, a barrier must significantly decrease the
mobility of radioactive materials in the repository. 


   WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

EPA criticized DOE's draft compliance application for its lack of
detail on the expected characteristics and components of the
transuranic waste that would be disposed of at WIPP.\2 Subsequently,
in April 1996 DOE disclosed its plans for controlling the types and
quantities of transuranic waste to be shipped to WIPP for disposal
and to address waste characteristics and components in its analysis
of compliance with EPA's compliance criteria. 

EPA's proposed criteria required that DOE identify in its compliance
application the chemical, radiological, and physical characteristics
and components of all transuranic waste to be disposed of at WIPP. 
In commenting on DOE's draft application, the agency noted that DOE
had made assumptions--rather than provide actual data--about the
characteristics and components of the waste, such as the types and
quantities of radioactivity, amounts of moisture in waste containers,
and quantities of other materials contained in the waste containers,
that could affect the repository's long-term performance.  EPA also
stated that DOE had not (1) identified the waste characteristics that
are important to the long-term performance of the repository; (2)
discussed the relationships that the characteristics of the waste may
have to important processes, such as the generation of gases over
time in the storage rooms; and (3) identified the uncertainties
associated with these relationships.  According to EPA, however, the
inclusion of such information is essential to an assessment of WIPP's
performance as a repository.  Furthermore, EPA stated, DOE had not
explained how it would control and track the types of waste disposed
of in the repository from the time the waste is characterized to the
time it is emplaced in WIPP to ensure that only waste with the
characteristics and components that have been found acceptable for
disposal are actually emplaced in the repository. 

EPA's final criteria require DOE to identify and assess, in its
compliance application, the effects on the repository's performance
of only those waste characteristics and components that might
actually influence the containment of waste in the disposal system. 
Under this requirement, DOE is to ensure that all of the
characteristics and components of the waste that could influence its
containment in the repository have been systematically identified and
evaluated.  Once DOE has identified (1) by physical samples,
knowledge of the waste streams from the operations of DOE's nuclear
facilities or (2) by other means, the waste's significant
characteristics and components, EPA's criteria require that DOE
limit, control, and quantify these characteristics and components. 

Until recently, DOE had not stated how it intends to implement these
criteria.  In 1993, DOE proposed using assessments of the
repository's performance as a tool for identifying the waste's
characteristics and components having the greatest influence on
performance.  This is a concept in which DOE would, using performance
assessments as a starting point, "screen" waste streams at storage
sites to establish an envelope of, or boundaries on, the
characteristics and components that are acceptable for disposal.  By
comparing the data on the characteristics and components of the waste
in storage or expected to be generated in the future with the
envelope, DOE could identify those wastes that are acceptable for
disposal at WIPP.  However, in late 1995, DOE canceled this activity
because, according to officials of DOE's Carlsbad office and Sandia
National Laboratories (DOE's principal scientific contractor for
WIPP), the Department now anticipates that all the waste that it has
planned to dispose of in WIPP will be acceptable for disposal. 

In April 1996, DOE took a first step toward addressing EPA's concerns
by identifying the criteria that DOE will use to identify the waste
that is acceptable for disposal in WIPP.  Furthermore, according to
officials in DOE's Carlsbad Area Office, in May 1996 the Department
revised its baseline inventory report for transuranic waste across
the DOE complex to include information on the waste characteristics
and components that will be included in the performance assessment
for WIPP.  They added that in July and August of 1996, a panel of
outside experts will perform a peer review of the Department's
efforts to identify the waste characteristics and components
consistent with the provisions in EPA's compliance criteria.  EPA's
Director of its WIPP Center, however, told us that DOE had not yet
provided the Center with a copy of this report; moreover, DOE has yet
to complete another part of its analysis of waste characteristics and
components to be submitted with its final compliance application to
EPA.  Thus, it is too early to ascertain whether the recent
initiatives by DOE will be responsive to EPA's concerns. 


--------------------
\2 EPA described waste characteristics as features describing the
physical, chemical, or radiologic properties and behavior of some or
all of the containers of waste.  The agency described waste
components as an amount of a type of waste present in the total
inventory, expressed as a volume, weight, or in curies (a measure of
radioactivity). 


   WASTE EMPLACEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

EPA stated that the absence of a plan for emplacing both contact- and
remote-handled waste in the underground repository was a major
omission in DOE's draft application.  DOE had designed WIPP so that
it would insert containers of remote-handled waste in the walls of
disposal rooms before stacking containers of contact-handled waste in
these rooms.  In the application, DOE stated that for the purpose of
assessing the repository's performance, it assumed that
contact-handled and remote-handled waste would be distributed equally
among all storage rooms.  EPA noted, however, that it did not appear
that DOE would have much, if any, remote-handled waste ready to ship
to WIPP in 1998.  Therefore, according to EPA, the actual
distribution of both types of waste within the repository may differ
from the distribution of waste that DOE had assumed in its draft
application.  EPA concluded that DOE should have addressed in the
application how the late arrival of remote-handled transuranic waste
would affect the disposal operations at the repository and the
long-term performance of the repository. 

In its final criteria, EPA stated that if DOE does not include a
waste-loading scheme in its compliance application, the Department
must assume, in assessing the repository's performance, that waste
containers are randomly emplaced in the repository rather than, as
DOE had assumed in its draft application, that the various
characteristics and components of the waste would be evenly
distributed throughout the repository. 


   DISPOSAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

EPA and the New Mexico Environmental Evaluation Group stated that the
draft application did not provide detailed descriptions of how DOE
intends to implement one or more of the assurance requirements of the
agency's disposal regulations.  For one of these assurance
requirements--maintaining active institutional control of the site
for as long as practicable--EPA said the lack of information in DOE's
draft application precluded an evaluation of the technical adequacy
of the subject.  Likewise, the agency said, DOE's application lacked
detailed monitoring plans for the site. 

The Environmental Evaluation Group took exception to both EPA's and
DOE's positions on implementing the assurance requirement in the
agency's criteria that address disincentives for extracting natural
resources in the area of the repository.  The resource disincentive
assurance requirement states that a repository should generally not
be located in an area where previous mining for resources has
occurred, a reasonable expectation of future exploration exists, or a
significant concentration of a rare material occurs, unless DOE can
show how the favorable characteristics of the site offset these
disadvantages.  The Group said that the WIPP site fails all three of
these resource disincentive criteria because there is a significant
concentration of potash, oil, and gas reserves in the vicinity of
WIPP.  Accordingly, the Group said, DOE should have provided
documentation of the favorable compensating characteristics of the
site.  In the compliance application, the Group recommended, DOE
should recognize the existing characteristics of the site and
consider all plausible human intrusion scenarios instead of debating
the favorable site characteristics and the degree to which these
characteristics compensate for the presence of resources.  Finally,
the Group noted that the location of WIPP within an area that is rich
in resources is another reason to include engineered barriers in the
design of the repository. 

In the final compliance criteria, EPA decided that DOE would not have
to provide a separate analysis of the favorable compensating
characteristics at WIPP if the Department can demonstrate compliance
with the agency's containment requirements.  The basis for the
agency's position was that the assessments of the repository's
performance, properly done, would consider all types of human
intrusion and any mitigating factors that might affect compliance. 
The Group, however, disagreed with EPA's position on the basis that
EPA, in its disposal regulations, had intended that the assurance
requirement be an added measure to enhance confidence that the
containment requirements would be met.  In addition, New Mexico's
assistant attorney general had similar concerns about DOE's and EPA's
treatment of resource disincentives in the draft application and the
final compliance criteria, respectively. 


   QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

EPA stated that DOE's draft application lacked sufficient evidence of
an adequately designed and implemented program to ensure that the
information and analyses that will be included in the compliance
application meet the standards for quality.  EPA said that the draft
lacked information describing the method(s) used to implement a
quality assurance program and to verify that the program is being
implemented properly.  For example, the agency noted, DOE omitted
information on the training of workers on quality procedures; records
of audits, surveillance, and resolution of nonconformance and
corrective actions; and document control.  EPA also highlighted the
shortcomings in DOE's software quality assurance requirements, such
as the lack of documentation of computer software and codes, that it
had brought to DOE's attention several months before the Department
submitted the draft application.  And EPA expressed concern about
certain of DOE's processes to establish that the data collected
before DOE had implemented an approved quality assurance program are
acceptable for use in an application for a certificate of compliance. 

DOE must satisfy a rigorous set of quality assurance procedures
generally adopted by the nuclear industry covering virtually all
aspects of WIPP, including the scientific and modeling studies in
support of the final performance assessment.  These requirements stem
from, among other things, EPA's compliance criteria for WIPP. 
Important quality assurance measures include the standards related to
work processes; control of engineering designs; document control and
management; procurement; inspection and testing; sample management
and control; planning and performing scientific investigations; peer
review of scientific studies and modelling efforts; software quality
assurance; and documentation, control, and qualification of
information. 

Since October 1993, when DOE decided to accelerate its schedule for
opening WIPP, the Department and its contractors have been
implementing quality assurance measures related to the Department's
effort to establish that WIPP meets all of the regulatory
requirements for disposing of transuranic waste.  As of May 1996,
however, DOE still needed to complete several important
quality-assurance-related activities before it will be prepared to
submit an application for a certificate of compliance.  One key
activity is demonstrating that the scientific data collected before
DOE had implemented the quality assurance program that EPA requires
are of satisfactory quality for use in supporting DOE's application
for a certificate of compliance.  According to Carlsbad Area Office's
Quality Assurance Manager, about 10 percent of the scientific
information that Sandia National Laboratories has collected was under
a quality assurance program that did not fully meet the current
program's requirements.  Therefore, to the extent that DOE would use
this information in support of the WIPP compliance application, the
data will have to be qualified for their intended use by alternative
means acceptable to EPA. 

Finally, officials of DOE's Carlsbad Area Office stated that they
have made improvements to comply with EPA's compliance criteria and
are on schedule to complete the qualification of information
necessary to submit DOE's final compliance application in October
1996. 


   HUMAN INTRUSION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7

EPA is requiring DOE to consider two potential pathways for future
human intrusion into a repository at WIPP that, in DOE's view, go
beyond the intent of the disposal regulations and add to the cost of
demonstrating compliance with the regulations but contribute little
to protecting public health and safety.  Specifically, to account for
the presence of potash mining in the vicinity of WIPP, the agency's
final criteria require that DOE, in assessing the performance of the
repository, address the effects of excavation mining after the
repository has been filled and closed.  Although EPA had stated in
its proposed criteria that it was not requiring consideration of
mining in its compliance criteria, it included mining in the final
criteria because, it said, mining could alter the properties of
certain rock formations above the underground repository.  These
requirements address the potential changes in the hydrogeology of the
rock formations--specifically, groundwater travel time--the size and
shape of mines, and when mining might occur. 

EPA is also requiring DOE to consider the effects of two types of
drilling for resources:  "shallow drilling," which is drilling to
depths above the level at which waste would be disposed of in the
repository, and "deep drilling," which is drilling to depths below
the disposal level.  EPA established criteria that require DOE to use
past human activities to predict future activities.  The agency
requires that the rate of drilling over the last 100 years\3 be
calculated in the Delaware Basin, which is the geographical area
within which WIPP is located.  Included in the basis for calculating
the drilling rates are any existing leases of drilling rights that
can reasonably be expected to be developed in the near future.  Once
DOE calculates the rate of drilling, it is required to use this rate
to predict the rate of drilling that may occur over the 10,000-year
period of analysis which the disposal regulations require.  The fixed
rate is to be based on both exploratory boreholes drilled and
developmental (production) boreholes and is to be held constant as
the types of resources change over time.  Furthermore, EPA required
DOE to assume that after WIPP is closed, boreholes drilled nearby
would affect the properties of the disposal system for the remainder
of the regulatory period.  Thus, DOE's assessments of the
repository's performance must take into account the hydrologic
effects of drilling on the disposal system and on the creation of any
new pathways for the release of radioactive materials from the
repository. 

Finally, EPA is requiring that DOE consider the consequences of
events and processes associated with all types of resource extraction
activities, including solution mining and fluid injection for
secondary recovery of depleted oil reserves.  EPA limited
consideration of these activities to the resource exploitation that
has actually occurred in the vicinity of WIPP and the existing plans
and leases for future drilling in the area for these purposes. 

In commenting on the proposed compliance criteria, DOE stated that it
should only have to consider human intrusion from exploratory
drilling, and not production- or development-related drilling, in its
compliance application.  On the basis of DOE's interpretation of
EPA's disposal regulations and their underlying technical basis,
mining was not an activity intended for consideration in an
assessment of the repository's performance.  DOE noted that EPA, when
developing the disposal regulations, clearly stipulated that the most
severe form of human intrusion to be considered in performance
assessments was "intermittent and inadvertent" exploratory drilling
for natural resources.  In DOE's view, the inclusion of
human-initiated events and processes other than exploratory drilling
when calculating the frequency of human intrusion is therefore
inconsistent with the technical assumptions on which EPA based its
disposal regulations.  Furthermore, DOE stated that addressing these
other types of human intrusion in its compliance application would
add to the time and cost required to demonstrate compliance with the
disposal regulations but would provide few benefits in terms of
protecting public health and safety. 

Officials of EPA's Radiation Protection Division agreed with DOE that
inadvertent and intermittent drilling for resources would be the most
severe type of human intrusion likely to be encountered at WIPP, but
they said that this does not mean that less severe types of human
intrusion should be discounted in the performance assessment.  The
officials stated that DOE's inclusion and consideration of less
severe types of human intrusion will result in a more complete and
credible compliance application by DOE. 


--------------------
\3 EPA believes that reliable drilling information is obtainable for
this period of time. 


PREPAREDNESS OF DOE'S FACILITIES
TO SHIP TRANSURANIC WASTE TO WIPP
========================================================== Appendix II

For the first few years of WIPP's operations, DOE will have a limited
capability at its six primary storage sites to determine if
transuranic waste satisfies the technical criteria for transportation
and disposal and to prepare this waste for shipment.  In fact, DOE
will not be ready to begin disposing of remote-handled waste until at
least 2002 and will not be able to begin disposing of most of this
waste for about 20 years.  The six sites are the Idaho site, the
Rocky Flats site (Colorado), Los Alamos National Laboratory (New
Mexico), the Oak Ridge site (Tennessee), the Hanford site
(Washington), and the Savannah River site (South Carolina).  Over the
longer term, DOE must develop facilities and equipment at all six
sites to prepare the waste for shipment if it is to dispose of all
stored and projected quantities of transuranic waste over the
repository's 35-year operating life.  According to DOE's Baseline
Environmental Management Report of 1995,\1 these facilities and
equipment may cost about $11 billion to develop and operate.\2


--------------------
\1 Estimating the Cold War Mortgage:  The 1995 Baseline Environmental
Management Report (DOE/EM-0232, Mar.  1995).  This report discusses
the activities and potential costs required to address the waste,
contamination, and surplus nuclear facilities that are the
responsibility of DOE's environmental management program. 

\2 Unless otherwise stated, all costs are expressed in constant 1995
dollars. 


   IDAHO SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

The Idaho site's nuclear activities began in 1949 with testing of
nuclear reactors and, subsequently, reprocessing spent nuclear fuel
and receiving and storing the nuclear waste generated at other
locations, such as Rocky Flats in Colorado.  The nuclear wastes
managed at the site include transuranic waste, low-level waste, and
high-level waste.  In addition, DOE stores spent nuclear fuel from
the Navy's nuclear reactor program and other sources at the site. 

DOE's Baseline Environmental Management Report states that
environmental management activities over the 91-year period from 1995
through 2085 could cost about $29 billion.  These environmental
activities include stabilizing the nuclear materials and facilities,
restoring the environment, managing the wastes, managing various
environmental activities, and providing site-wide services such as
environmental monitoring and security.  Of that amount, the cost of
preparing transuranic waste for disposal is estimated to be about
$1.35 billion through 2050.  The administration's budget for fiscal
year 1997 requests almost $111 million for waste management at Idaho. 
About $22 million, or 20 percent, would go for transuranic waste
activities, primarily to bring the storage of the waste into
compliance with the regulatory requirements and to accelerate the
characterization and certification of waste. 


      WASTE VOLUME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.1

The site has 39,255 cubic meters of contact-handled transuranic waste
in storage.\3 Commingled with this waste is about 25,000 cubic meters
of alpha low-level waste that contains transuranic elements\4 that
DOE will not allow to be disposed of at the site.  Thus, the total
amount of contact-handled waste that the site will ship to the
repository is about 65,000 cubic meters.  However, site managers
intend to treat, as appropriate, both types of waste, which is
expected to reduce the volume of waste eventually shipped to and
disposed of at WIPP to substantially less than 65,000 cubic meters. 
In addition to the contact-handled transuranic waste, the site has
about 200 cubic meters of remote-handled waste. 


--------------------
\3 Estimates of transuranic waste volumes have changed and continue
to change over time at various storage sites.  For consistency among
sites, we used the estimates of the volume of transuranic waste
currently stored and projected to be generated as reported by the
sites to DOE's Carlsbad Area Office and included by that Office in
its Transuranic Waste Baseline Inventory Report of December 1995. 
These estimates do not represent the volume of waste expected to be
shipped to and disposed of in WIPP because treatment and repackaging
of the waste, as appropriate, is expected to change the volume of the
waste. 

\4 Transuranic waste has designated minimum concentrations of
radioactivity per gram.  Waste contaminated with transuranic elements
that has concentrations of alpha-emitting radioactivity below the
level specified for transuranic waste is typically classified as
low-level waste.  Although alpha-emitting particles are unable to
penetrate human skin, they may be harmful if inhaled. 


      READINESS TO SHIP
      TRANSURANIC WASTE THROUGH
      2002
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.2

Between mid-1998 and the end of 2002, DOE expects to ship and dispose
of enough transuranic waste from the site--3,100 cubic meters--to
meet the requirements of a recent settlement of litigation with
Idaho.  However, whether the Department can achieve this short-term
objective is uncertain. 

In an October 16, 1995, settlement agreement resolving litigation
between Idaho and the federal government over planned federal
shipments of spent fuel and nuclear waste to the site, the parties
agreed that DOE would ship about 65,000 cubic meters of transuranic
waste (including the alpha-emitting low-level waste) from the site. 
The agreement states that (1) by April 30, 1999, the first shipments
shall be made from the site; (2) by December 31, 2002, not less than
3,100 cubic meters of the waste shall be shipped out of the state;
(3) after January 1, 2003, a running average (the average over any
3-year period) of at least 2,000 cubic meters per year shall be
shipped out of the state; and (4) by December 31, 2002, DOE should
complete the construction of a facility (and, by March 31, 2003,
begin operating it) to treat mixed (waste containing both radioactive
and hazardous components) transuranic and low-level waste.  Failure
to meet any of these deadlines would require DOE to stop shipping its
spent fuel to the site. 

To achieve the short-term stipulation in the settlement agreement,
DOE will need to have an adequate supply of contact-handled waste
ready for shipment to and disposal at WIPP.  This means that DOE will
have to retrieve containers of waste--55-gallon drums--from existing
storage areas, characterize the contents of the drums, and identify
those drums of waste that meet the technical criteria for
transportation and disposal.  The drums of waste that do not meet the
acceptance criteria for either transportation or disposal will
eventually have to be treated and/or repackaged to make the waste
acceptable.  In all, DOE will have to identify about 15,000
acceptable drums of contact-handled waste and ship these drums to
WIPP to remove 3,100 cubic meters of transuranic waste from Idaho by
the end of 2002. 

On the bases of our discussions with site officials and our review of
the documents we obtained from these officials, it is uncertain
whether DOE will be able to prepare and ship enough contact-handled
waste to meet its agreement with the state.  As of March 1995, DOE
had characterized about 640 drums of contact-handled waste at the
site.  About 420 of these drums, however, did not meet the waste
acceptance criteria that were then in effect but which have been
superseded by new criteria.\5 In September 1995, site managers of
transuranic waste estimated that by June 1998, they will have
identified about 700 drums of waste that meet the final criteria for
transportation to and disposal in WIPP. 

Subsequently, in April 1996, the manager of transuranic waste at the
site revised the estimate of the waste that the site expects to have
certified as acceptable for shipment by mid-1998.  According to this
DOE official, the site now anticipates that at least 2,000 drums of
waste will be certified as acceptable for transportation to and
disposal in WIPP when the repository opens.  Also, the site now
expects to have the capability of characterizing and certifying waste
at the rate of about 3,200 drums per year once WIPP opens.  In large
part, he said, the increase in the projected rates of
characterization and certification is due to (1) an ongoing effort to
develop scientific evidence to convince the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which must approve transportation containers, that the
types of waste that can be safely shipped in the containers can be
expanded, (2) a relaxation of waste acceptance criteria for
particulates in the waste, and (3) a less conservative view of the
amount of waste that can be certified.  In connection with the latter
reason, for example, the latest changes in the waste acceptance
criteria allowed DOE to take a less restrictive interpretation of the
amount of free liquids allowed in each drum. 

According to this official, if the new approach is successful, the
site should be able to sustain this rate of waste characterization
and certification and reach the short-term goal of shipping about
15,000 drums to WIPP by the end of 2002. 


--------------------
\5 According to a DOE official at the site, the Department had
characterized about 15,000 drums of waste by 1989 to a version of
waste acceptance criteria then in effect.  About 8,000 of the drums,
he added, did not meet those criteria. 


      OUTLOOK FOR THE LONGER TERM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:1.3

Because most of the contact-handled waste and much of the commingled
low-level waste are expected to require treatment before these wastes
can be shipped to and disposed of in WIPP, the site needs a treatment
facility to meet the stipulation that, beginning in 2003, it must
ship an average of 2,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste per year
from Idaho.  According to a June 1995 summary of the status of the
transuranic waste prepared by site officials, only about 20 percent
of the estimated volume of stored contact-handled waste will not
require some form of treatment or repackaging.  About 53 percent of
the contact-handled waste is not expected to meet the transportation
criteria because the waste is in boxes and the contents need to be
repackaged. 

To provide the facilities and equipment that are needed to prepare
these wastes for shipment and disposal, DOE plans to contract with a
private company for waste processing services.  The private company
would build and operate a facility for characterizing, treating,
packaging, and certifying drums and boxes of transuranic and
low-level waste.  DOE expects that it will award this contract in
September 1996 and that the facility will begin operating in 2003. 
Site officials, however, cannot yet estimate how many drums of waste
would be available for shipment each year after the facility is
operational, the technologies to be used in the facility, or the cost
to purchase waste processing services from a private company in
comparison with the construction and operation of a federally owned
facility. 


   ROCKY FLATS ENVIRONMENTAL
   TECHNOLOGY SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

With the end of the production of nuclear weapon components several
years ago, the new mission of Rocky Flats has been environmental
management and possible economic development.  The mission involves
remediation, waste storage, treatment and disposal, consolidation of
materials, deactivation of buildings, and decommissioning.  According
to DOE's Baseline Environmental Management Report, the total cost of
environmental management at the site could be about $36.6 billion
over a 66-year period.  Of that amount, about $9.6 billion is for
waste management, including about $2.2 billion for transuranic waste
management. 


      WASTE VOLUME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.1

The site currently has 1,869 cubic meters of contact-handled
transuranic waste, and DOE projects that the site will generate an
additional 3,205 cubic meters for disposal in WIPP.  The stored waste
includes both transuranic waste and over 800 cubic meters of
plutonium residues.  At one time, DOE had intended to recover the
plutonium from these residues for reuse.  Because weapons production
activities have ended at the site, however, DOE has decided that the
residues are now waste and may be disposed of in WIPP.  This
approach, DOE says, implements a recommendation of the Defense
Nuclear Facility Safety Board.  The Board, which provides independent
oversight of DOE, recommended that because the plutonium residues are
potentially unstable in their present condition, DOE expedite a
program for putting the residues in a stable condition for storage. 
The residues may need to be processed and repackaged to put them in a
more stable condition for storage and for disposal at WIPP. 

Under the Federal Facility Compliance Act, Colorado issued DOE a
compliance order calling for the Department to begin shipping mixed
transuranic waste from Rocky Flats at or before the end of 1998.  The
order also precludes DOE, after it begins shipping the waste, from
storing newly generated mixed waste, including mixed transuranic
waste, for more than 2 years without the state's approval.  Mixed
waste from stabilizing and repackaging residue, however, was not part
of the order; rather, it was part of a separate agreement between DOE
and the state. 


      READINESS TO SHIP
      TRANSURANIC WASTE THROUGH
      2002
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.2

As of September 1995, the site had characterized about 500 drums of
contact-handled transuranic waste using older waste acceptance
criteria which have been superseded.  At that time, DOE anticipated
that the site would have about 1,000 drums of waste characterized by
mid-1998; however, not all of those drums would meet the acceptance
criteria for transportation to WIPP. 

DOE now anticipates that the site will have 5,000 drums (about 1,043
cubic meters) of waste ready for shipment to WIPP by the time WIPP
opens in 1998 if (1) the schedule for processing the potentially
unstable plutonium residues is met and (2) enough drums of
transuranic waste can be characterized and certified.  For the
residues, the objective is to stabilize the waste by venting residue
drums to minimize the risk of hydrogen accumulating and creating
pressure in the drums and treat and/or repackage salts, combustibles,
and miscellaneous residues on an accelerated basis.  For stored
transuranic waste, DOE believes that 60 percent of the drums may be
certifiable without repackaging and further processing.  DOE expects
to have about 600 drums of transuranic waste partially characterized
by September 1996 and additional characterization methods will be
required. 

If funding were available for additional equipment, DOE officials
said, they would have 5,000 drums or more of waste available when
WIPP opens. 


      OUTLOOK FOR THE LONGER TERM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:2.3

More problematic for the site is the treatment of the remaining 40
percent of the drums of transuranic waste that waste managers
estimate is unacceptable for disposal in its current condition. 
According to a 1995 DOE report on the Rocky Flats transuranic waste
program, construction of a treatment facility for this waste has been
delayed from 2002 to 2007.  Because of this delay, the site does not
expect to process this waste until the period from 2012 though 2022. 
In April 1996, DOE officials told us they are working to develop a
plan for removing special nuclear materials and transuranic waste
from the site by 2015.  Implementing such a plan, they estimated,
would cost an additional $10 million per year, or a total of over $51
million, more than their current budget. 


   LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

The Los Alamos National Laboratory was established in 1943 to design,
develop, and test nuclear weapons.  The laboratory's current mission
remains focused on national defense but now also includes research in
fields such as space physics and biomedicine.  The ongoing plutonium
processing operations continue to generate transuranic waste. 
According to DOE's Baseline Environmental Management Report, the
environmental management activities at the laboratory could cost
about $4.4 billion over the 36-year period from 1995 through 2030. 
This cost estimate includes $507 million for preparing the
transuranic waste for disposal. 


      WASTE VOLUME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.1

Los Alamos has 10,953 cubic meters of contact-handled transuranic
waste, and another 7,351 cubic meters is projected for a total of
18,304 cubic meters.  For the most part, DOE's projection of waste to
be generated is based on the transuranic waste that will be produced
at a plutonium processing facility.  The laboratory's waste manager
said that the plutonium facility is expected to generate about 500
drums of contact-handled waste in fiscal year 1996 and could generate
as much as 1,000 drums per year in the future. 


      READINESS TO SHIP
      TRANSURANIC WASTE THROUGH
      2002
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.2

By October 1996, according to the laboratory's waste manager, 500
drums of waste will be certified as acceptable for shipment to and
disposal at WIPP according to DOE's most current waste acceptance
criteria.  Also, the laboratory expects to have 3,000 drums certified
and ready for shipment by the time WIPP opens.  The manager said that
the laboratory had certified about 3,000 drums of waste as meeting
earlier waste acceptance criteria that have since been superseded. 
Additional characterization measures will have to be performed on
2,500 of these drums to determine if they meet the current acceptance
criteria for transportation.  The laboratory, however, does not have
the equipment needed for some of the essential characterization work. 
The laboratory expects to obtain mobile equipment that will take
certain gas samples from drums at the rate of almost 5,000 drums per
year.  If any drums fail this test, the laboratory will need to treat
the waste by repackaging or other means. 

When WIPP opens, according to the waste manager, the site expects to
be prepared to make two shipments per week to WIPP for 50 weeks per
year.  For each shipment, a tractor-trailer would haul three shipping
containers loaded with a total of 35 drums.  (The maximum capacity of
three shipping containers is 42 drums.) This would amount to about
3,500 drums per year.  He said the laboratory is studying whether to
remove 16,000 drums of transuranic waste from storage under an
earthen cover for characterization beginning in 1996.  If the
laboratory is able to characterize those drums in the near future,
the total amount of waste ready for shipment to WIPP could be as high
as 10,000 drums. 


      OUTLOOK FOR THE LONGER TERM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:3.3

According to the laboratory's manager for transuranic waste, no new
facilities will be required to prepare transuranic waste for shipment
and disposal if, as planned, DOE obtains from the Environmental
Protection Agency a "no migration" variance in accordance with the
agency's regulations for implementing the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.  If, however, DOE is unsuccessful in obtaining the
variance, he added, then new facilities would be required to treat
mixed transuranic waste to make the waste suitable for disposal in
WIPP. 


   OAK RIDGE SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

The Oak Ridge site in eastern Tennessee is comprised mainly of a
national laboratory, a manufacturing and developmental engineering
plant, and a retired plant for enriching uranium.  The activities at
the site include, among other things, nuclear weapons component
disassembly and material storage, nonweapons research, environmental
restoration, and waste management.  According to DOE's Baseline
Environmental Management Report, the total cost of the environmental
management activities over a 71-year period could be about $38
billion.  This cost estimate includes about $2.6 billion over the
next 51 years for managing transuranic waste.  In April 1996, DOE's
contractor at the site said the first revision to the Baseline
Environmental Management Report will reduce the estimate for
transuranic waste to about $850 million. 


      WASTE VOLUME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.1

The site has 1,326 cubic meters of contact-handled waste, and an
additional 256 cubic meters are projected for a total of 1,582 cubic
meters.  More importantly, Oak Ridge has most of DOE's stored
remote-handled transuranic waste.  The site has 1,832 cubic meters of
remote-handled waste, and another 344 cubic meters is projected for a
total of 2,176 cubic meters.  The remote-handled waste consists of
about 800 cubic meters of sludge, stored in underground tanks, and
solids such as paper, glass, plastic tubing, shoe covers, wipes,
filters, and discarded equipment.  The solid remote-handled waste is
typically contained in cylindrical concrete casks.  In September
1995, the state of Tennessee issued an order under the Federal
Facility Compliance Act requiring DOE to comply with a plan for the
treatment of mixed waste, including mixed transuranic waste.  For
transuranic waste, the order requires (1) initial treatment of the
remote-handled sludge by June 30, 2002, and shipment of this waste to
WIPP starting in September of that year; (2) initial shipment of
solid remote-handled and contact-handled transuranic waste by March
2015; and (3) final shipment of all transuranic waste from the site
by 2023. 


      READINESS TO SHIP
      TRANSURANIC WASTE THROUGH
      2002
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.2

DOE does not expect to ship contact-handled transuranic waste for
disposal in WIPP until after 2002.  As of September 1995, the site
had 822 drums of waste characterized to the WIPP waste acceptance
criteria that were then in effect but which have been superseded. 
The site projects that by the time WIPP opens, 900 drums of
contact-handled waste will have been characterized, but not all of
this waste will meet the transportation requirements for shipment to
WIPP.  In any event, according to the manager of transuranic waste,
the remote-handled sludge is the site's first priority for treatment
and disposal because this waste constitutes a greater risk than the
contact-handled waste and the state has given remote-handled sludge
priority in its compliance order. 


      OUTLOOK FOR THE LONGER TERM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:4.3

According to the Baseline Environmental Management Report and the
original site treatment plan, DOE intended to build a waste
processing facility for transuranic waste at an estimated cost
exceeding $1 billion.  However, the site's manager of transuranic
waste told us that budget cuts have eliminated plans for the
facility.  Furthermore, until the state issued its compliance order,
DOE had anticipated building the facility much later than 2002.  In
addition, the manager said, the treatment plan relied on an unproven
technology.  In September 1995, DOE completed a study of more than 20
alternative treatment methods for remote- and contact-handled waste
at the site.  The study concluded that the most feasible alternative
for the remote-handled sludge was solidifying the sludge with cement. 
The study also estimated that the necessary facilities and
technologies would cost $226 million net present value ($693 million
escalated) for processing the remotely-handled sludge by cementation
and processing remotely handled and contact-handled solids by sorting
and compaction. 

DOE expects to issue an invitation for bid in January 1997 for a
private facility to process the remote-handled sludge.  If funding
for the site's transuranic waste program is not reduced in the coming
years, he said, the facility should be available in time to meet the
deadline in the state's compliance order for disposing of
remote-handled waste.  He added that the rate at which the new
facility could prepare this waste for shipment to WIPP is unknown. 
The rate, in part, would depend on the capabilities of the containers
that DOE will design and procure for transporting remote-handled
waste.  The manager pointed out that if the waste is solidified by
adding concrete, the volume will increase and the radioactivity will
be diluted to the point where the waste might not be classified as
transuranic waste.  He added, however, that officials in DOE's
Carlsbad office have assured the site that the waste would be
accepted for disposal because it contains transuranic waste.  Also,
there are currently no firm plans for treating and processing the
solid remote-handled waste and the contact-handled waste at the site. 


   HANFORD SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

The original mission of the Hanford site--to produce plutonium for
nuclear weapons--ended in 1989.  The primary mission at the site now
and for the foreseeable future is environmental management. 
According to DOE's Baseline Environmental Management Report, the
total cost of environmental management activities over the 66-year
period from 1995 through 2060 could amount to $73 billion.  Of this
amount, about $42 billion would be spent for waste management
activities, including over $3.2 billion for the management of
existing and projected transuranic waste through 2050. 


      WASTE VOLUME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.1

DOE estimates that about 11,028 cubic meters of contact-handled
transuranic waste is stored at the site and that it will generate
another 34,909 cubic meters of this waste.  The Department also
estimates that it has 200 cubic meters of remote-handled transuranic
waste in storage.  This waste typically consists of debris such as
metals, plastics, rubber, clothing, rags, and glass.  Moreover, DOE
projects that it will generate 21,521 cubic meters of remote-handled
waste in the future, primarily consisting of contaminated equipment
that is currently part of the network of underground tanks at the
site in which high-level radioactive waste is stored.  The high-level
waste was produced as a by-product of reprocessing production reactor
fuel to recover plutonium for weapons purposes. 

The amount of remote-handled waste that may actually be generated in
the future is uncertain.  Earlier projections by DOE have been as low
as 4,000 cubic meters and as high as 45,000 cubic meters.  The actual
amount may depend, in part, on the selection of technologies for
cleaning up the network of underground storage tanks.  For example,
site managers now believe that most of the equipment that they had
projected would be remote-handled waste may eventually be
decontaminated and disposed of at the Hanford site.  For this reason,
they have recently lowered their estimate of projected remote-handled
waste from 21,521 to 3,470 cubic meters. 


      READINESS TO SHIP
      TRANSURANIC WASTE THROUGH
      2002
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.2

DOE does not expect to prepare any contact-handled transuranic waste
for shipment to and disposal in WIPP until 2002.  The basic reason is
that transuranic waste management is relatively low on the list of
priorities for environmental management activities at the site.  For
example, over 300 other projects at the site have higher priority
than processing contact-handled waste for shipment and disposal. 
Furthermore, DOE has no current plans for preparing remote-handled
waste for shipment and disposal; however, according to officials of
DOE's Carlsbad Area Office, ongoing negotiations among DOE, EPA, and
the state of Washington should lead to plans for managing all stored
and projected transuranic waste at the site. 

The facilities and equipment planned for retrieving the
contact-handled waste from earthen-covered storage have been
designed, but construction is on hold due to a lack of funds.  The
latest estimate is that the construction of the facility, which DOE
estimates will cost $35 million, may begin in 2002.  The Department
recently constructed a facility for characterizing, repackaging, and
certifying low-level and contact-handled waste generated and stored
at the site.  For the next several years, however, DOE intends to use
this facility to process mixed low-level waste and dispose of this
waste at the site.  Due to a lack of funds, DOE does not expect to
begin processing contact-handled waste until at least March 2002, and
then only if the funds for this purpose are obtained beginning in
that year.  Moreover, some contact-handled waste may require
incineration to meet the standards for disposal in WIPP.  To fulfill
this potential requirement, DOE will have to either construct an
incineration facility at the site, use an off-site vendor's facility,
or use another DOE facility. 


      OUTLOOK FOR THE LONGER TERM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:5.3

The plans that DOE once had to develop facilities and equipment that
are needed to retrieve and process contact-handled waste for disposal
have been placed on indefinite hold due to a lack of funds.  Thus, it
is uncertain at this time when DOE will be able to begin preparing
contact-handled waste for shipment and disposal in significant
quantities.  As discussed earlier, transuranic waste is relatively
low on the site's list of environmental management priorities. 
Moreover, although DOE had once planned to construct facilities for
processing remote-handled waste for shipment and disposal, these
plans have been canceled due to a lack of funds.  DOE now expects
that its ongoing negotiations with EPA and the state of Washington
will lead to plans for managing, within the next 20 years, the large
quantity of remote-handled waste projected to be generated at the
site. 


   SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6

DOE's Savannah River Site was developed in the 1950s to produce
nuclear materials for national defense, medical uses, and the space
program.  The emphasis is shifting from producing nuclear materials
to environmental management.  According to DOE's Baseline
Environmental Management Report, the total cost of environmental
management activities over the 61-year period from 1995 through 2055
could be about $68 billion.  This amount includes over $800 million
through 2050 to manage the transuranic waste now stored and expected
to be generated at the site. 


      WASTE VOLUME
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.1

DOE, in its most recent inventory of the transuranic waste stored at
its sites, estimated that 6,551 cubic meters of contact-handled
transuranic waste are stored at the site.\6 The Department projects
that the site will generate 8,946 cubic meters more of this type of
waste, for a total of 15,497 cubic meters.  DOE's current estimates
of the transuranic waste at the site include a very small amount of
remote-handled waste in storage. 


--------------------
\6 According to the manager of transuranic waste at the site, while
there are about 10,000 cubic meters of transuranic waste in storage,
up to half of this waste may eventually be reclassified as low-level
radioactive waste. 


      READINESS TO SHIP
      TRANSURANIC WASTE THROUGH
      2002
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.2

The site intends to begin shipping transuranic waste to WIPP in 1999. 
All transuranic waste is expected to require detailed
characterization, but the existing capability for this process is
limited.  To date, the site has emphasized the retrieval,
repackaging, and temporary storage of these wastes pending detailed
characterization.  Also, treatment of some or all transuranic waste
to make the waste acceptable for shipping and disposal will likely be
required, but a treatment facility has not yet been included in the
waste management plans.  Finally, no facilities at the site are
capable of loading transuranic waste into DOE's existing fleet of
shipping containers, and some of the waste is not suitable for
shipment in these containers. 


      OUTLOOK FOR THE LONGER TERM
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:6.3

According to the site's manager of transuranic waste, DOE will need
to develop extensive facilities at the site to retrieve,
characterize, treat, package, and ship about 75 percent of the
transuranic waste.  In fact, mixed waste shipments may not begin
until about 2012, according to the site's proposed treatment plan. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix IV

We performed our work at DOE's headquarters in Washington, D.C.; its
Carlsbad Area Office in Carlsbad, New Mexico; and at WIPP.  We also
performed work at the Department's Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, Idaho; Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, Colorado; and
Hanford Site, Richland, Washington.  In addition, we obtained and
reviewed information on management of transuranic waste from DOE
officials at its Savannah River site, Aiken, South Carolina, and Los
Alamos National Laboratory, near Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

To assess the prospects for opening WIPP on DOE's schedule, we
interviewed officials and examined the records and reports of the
Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management, its
Carlsbad Area Office, and its contractors on WIPP, particularly
Sandia.  We also interviewed officials and obtained documentation
from EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air concerning the agency's
disposal regulations and its Office of Solid Waste concerning
RCRA-related land disposal regulations.  In addition, we met with
officials of New Mexico's Environmental Department in Santa Fe
concerning the state's procedures for issuing permits under RCRA and
obtained documents related to DOE's current permit application. 

In addition, we discussed WIPP scientific and regulatory issues with
various parties in New Mexico, including the state's Environmental
Evaluation Group, the assistant attorney general, and other
interested groups.  We attended three meetings on WIPP between DOE
and EPA and a meeting of the WIPP Committee of the National Academy
of Sciences' Board on Radioactive Waste Management.  Finally, we
discussed the status of the Committee's ongoing study of DOE's
research program on WIPP with Committee staff. 

To assess whether DOE is positioned to begin filling WIPP in both its
first few years of operation and over the longer term, we obtained
information about the planned waste management operations at WIPP. 
We toured the repository and interviewed officials of the Carlsbad
Area Office and its contractor for operating WIPP and the waste
transportation system.  We also reviewed the documents and reports
that DOE had prepared on these subjects.  To evaluate the readiness
of DOE's waste storage sites to prepare and ship transuranic waste to
WIPP, we toured the waste storage and preparation facilities at
Idaho, Hanford, Rocky Flats, and Oak Ridge and interviewed officials
of DOE and its contractors at these sites.  We also interviewed DOE
officials at Savannah River and Los Alamos by telephone.  In
addition, we obtained and reviewed documents from all six sites
pertaining to their waste inventories and plans for preparing and
shipping waste to WIPP. 

We discussed the facts presented in this report with DOE headquarters
officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director
Dwayne E.  Weigel, Assistant Director
Daniel J.  Semick, Senior Evaluator
Victor J.  Sgobba, Senior Evaluator
Glenn D.  Slocum, Senior Evaluator
Susan W.  Irwin, Senior Attorney

GAO Related Products

Nuclear Waste:  Issues Affecting the Opening of DOE's Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant (GA0/T-RCED-95-254; July 21, 1995). 

Nuclear Waste:  Change in Test Strategy Sound, but DOE Overstated
Savings (GAO/RCED-95-44; Dec.  27, 1994). 

Nuclear Waste:  DOE Assistance in Funding Route Improvements to Waste
Isolation Plant (GAO/RCED-92-65FS, Jan.  14, 1992). 

Nuclear Waste:  Weak DOE Contract Management Invited TRUPACT-II
Setbacks (GAO/RCED-92-26; Jan.  14, 1992). 

Nuclear Waste:  Delays in Addressing Environmental Requirements and
New Safety Concerns Affect DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(GAO/T-RCED-91-67, June 13, 1991). 

Nuclear Waste:  Issues Affecting Land Withdrawal of DOE's Waste
Isolation Pilot Project (GAO/T-RCED-91-38, Apr.  16, 1991). 

Nuclear Waste:  Storage Issues at DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
in New Mexico (GAO/RCED-90-1, Dec.  8, 1989). 

Status of the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(GAO/T-RCED-89-50, June 12, 1989). 

Status of the Department of Energy's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(GAO/T-RCED-88-63, Sept.  13, 1988). 


*** End of document. ***