Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: States Are Not Developing Disposal
Facilities (Chapter Report, 09/17/1999, GAO/RCED-99-238).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the
management and disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive
wastes, including the progress of states and compacts of states in
developing new disposal facilities.

GAO noted that: (1) by the end of 1998, states, acting alone or in
compacts, had collectively spent almost $600 million attempting to
develop new disposal facilities; (2) however, none of these efforts have
been successful; (3) only California successfully licensed a facility,
but the federal government did not transfer to the state federal land on
which the proposed site is located; (4) in three other states, candidate
sites were rejected by state regulatory agencies; (5) North Carolina was
considering a license application for a site when it shut down the
project for what it characterized as budgetary reasons; (6) at this
time, the efforts by states to develop new disposal facilities have
essentially stopped; (7) most commercial generators of low-level
radioactive wastes have access to waste disposal services; (8) the
volume of these wastes disposed of in 1998 was less than half the amount
disposed of each year in the late 1980s; (9) still, the Barnwell Waste
Management facility's remaining disposal capacity could be used up in 10
years; (10) the Envirocare of Utah facility is available to waste
generators in all states except the Northwest compact region, which
requires its waste generators to use the Richland facility; (11) the
limited capacity of the Barnwell facility and the lack of the successful
development of new facilities by compacts or states raise the question
of whether to retain or abandon the compact approach; (12) retaining the
present system would allow compacts and individual states to continue to
exercise substantial control over the management and disposal of
low-level radioactive wastes but would also maintain a system that has
not provided an ample, assured supply of future disposal capacity; (13)
abandoning the compact approach in favor of opening the disposal market
to private industry could stimulate competition to meet the disposal
needs of both commercial waste generators and the Department of Energy
(DOE); (14) however, states and opponents of new disposal sites could
still oppose the private development of new disposal facilities, and
Washington State might close the Richland facility rather than permit
the facility to serve waste generators throughout the nation; and (15)
DOE has sufficient disposal capacity to meet the needs of commercial
waste generators; however, the most likely DOE facilities are located in
Nevada and Washington, which appear to have little incentive to accept
such an arrangement.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-238
     TITLE:  Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: States Are Not Developing
	     Disposal Facilities
      DATE:  09/17/1999
   SUBJECT:  Radioactive waste disposal
	     Facility construction
	     Site selection
	     Hazardous substances
	     Interagency relations
	     Nuclear facilities
	     Environmental monitoring
	     Interstate programs
	     Radioactive wastes
IDENTIFIER:  DOE Low Level Radioactive Waste Program

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

September 1999

LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES -
STATES ARE NOT DEVELOPING DISPOSAL
FACILITIES

GAO/RCED-99-238

States' Disposal of Low-Level Wastes

(141242)

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

  AEC - Atomic Energy Commission
  DOE - Department of Energy
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  NARM - naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive
     material
  NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission

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

B-283126

September 17, 1999

The Honorable Frank H.  Murkowski
Chairman, Committee on Energy and
 Natural Resources
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

This report responds to your request that we review the status of the
management and disposal of commercially generated low-level
radioactive wastes, including the progress of states and compacts of
states in developing new disposal facilities. 

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 Honorable Bill Richardson, Secretary of
Energy; the Honorable Greta Jo Dicus, Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; and the Honorable Jacob J.  Lew, Director, Office of
Management and Budget.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Key contributors to this report are
listed in Appendix VI. 

Sincerely yours,

(Ms.) Gary L.  Jones
Associate Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0

States, acting alone or within compacts of two or more, have
collectively spent almost $600 million over the last 18 years
attempting to find and develop about 10 sites for disposing of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes.  Commercial
low-level radioactive wastes come from nuclear power plants,
pharmaceutical companies, and institutions such as hospitals and
universities that use radioactive materials for diagnosis, treatment,
and research.  Low-level wastes include such things as metal
components, resins, filters, rags, paper, liquid, glass, and
protective clothing, that have been exposed to radioactivity or
contaminated with radioactive material.  Most commercial low-level
radioactive wastes are generated by over 100 nuclear power plants
nationwide.  In 1980 and 1985, the Congress enacted, then amended,
legislation encouraging states to form compacts and provide regional
disposal facilities by the end of 1992. 

Concerned that no new facilities for disposing of low-level
radioactive wastes have opened under the auspices of the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended, the Chairman,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, requested that GAO
review

  -- the status of states' and compacts' efforts to establish new
     disposal facilities;

  -- the status of the management and disposal of commercially
     generated low-level radioactive wastes, including the continued
     availability of the three existing disposal facilities, the
     volume of wastes disposed of, and the wastes, if any, that are
     not authorized for disposal at the existing facilities; and

  -- alternative approaches to managing and disposing of commercially
     generated low-level radioactive wastes. 

   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended in
1985, established as federal policy that commercial low-level
radioactive waste can be most safely and effectively managed by
states on a regional basis.  The objectives of these two acts were to
provide for more disposal capacity on a regional basis and to more
equitably distribute the responsibility for the management of
low-level radioactive wastes among the states.  In response to the
acts, 44 states have entered into 10 compacts, varying in membership
from 2 to 8 states.  Eight compacts intended to develop new disposal
facilities.  The other two compacts share a disposal facility located
on the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford nuclear site, near
Richland, Washington.  To encourage states to form compacts and
develop new disposal facilities, congressionally approved compacts
may prohibit the disposal of wastes generated outside of their
respective regions. 

When the 1980 act was passed, there were three operating disposal
facilities for commercial waste.  The Richland, Washington, and the
Barnwell, South Carolina, facilities continue to accept all types of
commercial low-level wastes except (1) mixed wasteswastes that
contain both radioactive and chemically hazardous constituents--and
(2) the most concentrated class of low-level radioactive wastes. 
Under the 1985 amendments, DOE is responsible for disposing of the
most concentrated class of these wastes, but is not responsible for
disposing of commercially generated mixed wastes.  The third
facility, at Beatty, Nevada, was permanently closed by order of that
state's governor at the end of 1992.  In the 1990s, Envirocare of
Utah, Inc., developed a licensed disposal facility in Utah.  This
facility disposes of wastes, including mixed wastes, that are only
slightly contaminated with radioactivity.  Envirocare developed the
facility outside the framework of the compact act but with the
acceptance of the Northwest compact. 

   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

By the end of 1998, states, acting alone or in compacts, had
collectively spent almost $600 million attempting to develop new
disposal facilities.  However, none of these efforts have been
successful.  Only California successfully licensed a facility, but
the federal government did not transfer to the state federal land on
which the proposed site is located.  In three other states, candidate
sites were rejected by state regulatory agencies.  North Carolina was
considering a license application for a site when it shut down the
project for what it characterized as budgetary reasons.  At this
time, the efforts by states to develop new disposal facilities have
essentially stopped. 

Most commercial generators of low-level radioactive wastes have
access to waste disposal services.  Waste generators in 11 states
that make up the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts use the
Richland facility.  Waste generators in all states except North
Carolina may use the Barnwell facility to dispose of their normal
operating wastes.\1

The volume of these wastes disposed of in 1998 was less than half the
amount disposed of each year in the late 1980s.  Still, the Barnwell
facility's remaining disposal capacity could be used up in 10 years. 
The Envirocare facility is available to waste generators in all
states except the Northwest compact region, which requires its waste
generators to use the Richland facility.  As the volume of wastes
from routine operations has declined in the 1990s, hundreds of
thousands of cubic feet of wastes from cleaning up commercial nuclear
facilities have been disposed of at the Envirocare site.  Three types
of low-level radioactive wastes do not have access to disposal
facilities and, therefore, must be stored.  One waste type is mixed
waste that does not meet license criteria for disposal at the
Envirocare facility.  A second waste type is waste generated in North
Carolina that does not meet the criteria for disposal at the
Envirocare facility and which, according to South Carolina's law, is
not allowed to be disposed of at the Barnwell facility.  The third
waste type is the most concentrated class of low-level radioactive
waste.  DOE is responsible for disposing of this type of waste but
does not anticipate being ready to do so for another 20 years. 

The limited capacity of the Barnwell facility and the lack of the
successful development of new facilities by compacts or states raise
the question of whether to retain or abandon the compact approach. 
Retaining the present system would allow compacts and individual
states to continue to exercise substantial control over the
management and disposal of low-level radioactive wastes but would
also maintain a system that has not provided an ample, assured supply
of future disposal capacity.  Abandoning the compact approach in
favor of opening the disposal market to private industry could
stimulate competition to meet the disposal needs of both commercial
waste generators and DOE.  However, states and opponents of new
disposal sites could still oppose the private development of new
disposal facilities, and Washington State might close the Richland
facility rather than permit the facility to serve waste generators
throughout the nation.  Finally, DOE has sufficient disposal capacity
to meet the needs of commercial waste generators; however, the most
likely DOE facilities are located in Nevada and Washington, which
appear to have little incentive to accept such an arrangement.  Thus,
any approach to providing disposal capacity for commercial waste
generators will have to address the willingnessor unwillingnessof
any state or states to serve as host for a disposal facility. 

--------------------
\1 When South Carolina withdrew from a compact in 1995, the
withdrawal legislation prohibited the disposal of wastes generated in
North Carolina at the Barnwell facility.  The stated reason for
denying access was that North Carolina was not making enough progress
in developing a new disposal facility for the compact. 

   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

      STATUS OF COMPACTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

None of the states or compacts have successfully developed a new
disposal facility.  Although the specific reasons for the lack of
success vary among compacts and states, there are several common
threads.  One thread is the controversial nature of nuclear waste
disposal, which often manifests itself in the form of skepticism
about and/or opposition to disposal facilities by members of the
public and political leaders at all levels of government.  Also, in
recent years the declining volume of wastes, the high cost of
developing new disposal facilities, and the continued availability of
disposal services to most waste generators caused waste generators,
compacts, and states to reassess their need for disposal facilities
or to defer the development of facilities.  For example, Midwest
compact generators have reduced the volume of the wastes that the
region disposes of by about 83 percent.  Presently, no state or
compact is trying to identify a site for a disposal facility. 
Furthermore, at least one stateConnecticut--is now exploring the
feasibility of developing a facility for storing wastes for a period
of 100 or more years before permanently disposing of the wastes. 

      CURRENT DISPOSAL SITUATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

Commercial generators of low-level radioactive wastes throughout the
nation generally have access to one or more of the three existing
disposal facilities.  Waste generators in the 11 states that make up
the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts use the Richland facility. 
Since 1965, more than 13 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive
wastes have been disposed of at this facility, which has an unused
capacity of about 44 million cubic feet.  Waste generators in all
states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) except
North Carolina have access to the Barnwell facility.  The Barnwell
facility has an estimated remaining capacity of about 3.2 million
cubic feet, or about 10 years of remaining life at recent disposal
rates.  The Envirocare facility is available to waste generators in
all states except those in the eight-state Northwest compact, which
generally requires that its waste generators use the compact's
Richland facility.  To date, about 10 to 15 percent of the Envirocare
facility's disposal capacity of about 247 million cubic feet has been
used. 

Since the 1985 amendments were enacted, the volume of wastes from
normal operations disposed of each year has declined.  This is due to
reductions in the amount of wastes being generated and the use of
techniques, such as compaction and incineration, to further reduce
the volume of the wastes that are actually generated.  However, the
decline has been partially offset by the emergence of bulk wastes
produced from cleaning up nuclear facilities and sites.\2 (See fig. 
1.) Cleanup wastes, which are characterized by their relatively high
volumes and very low levels of radioactivity, are disposed of at the
Envirocare facility.  In 1998, for example, more than five times the
volume of wastes was disposed of at the Envirocare facility than at
the Barnwell facility, but the Envirocare wastes contained less than
1 percent of the radioactivity contained in the Barnwell wastes. 

   Figure 1:  Low-level
   Radioactive Wastes Disposed of
   From 1986 Through 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Three types of low-level radioactive wastes do not have access to
disposal facilities.  First, neither the Richland nor the Barnwell
facilities accept mixed wastes.  The Envirocare facility accepts
mixed waste within the limits of the disposal criteria contained in
its operating license.  Thus, mixed wastes that are not acceptable
for disposal at the Envirocare facility cannot be disposed of. 

Second, when South Carolina enacted legislation in 1995 to withdraw
from a compact of states, the legislation prohibited wastes generated
in North Carolina from being disposed of in the Barnwell facility. 
Officials in South Carolina acknowledge that this ban probably
improperly restricts interstate commerce; however, the ban has not
been challenged in the courts.  As a result of the ban, waste
generators in North Carolina must store these wastes unless the
wastes meet the license criteria for disposal at the Envirocare
facility.  According to a survey by North Carolina, at the beginning
of 1998, waste generators in the state were storing over 57,000 cubic
feet of wastes. 

Third, the 1985 amendments made DOE responsible for disposing of the
most concentrated class of commercial low-level wastes.  These wastes
are generally internal components of the reactor vessels at nuclear
power plants, filter materials, or sealed radioactive sources used
for industrial purposes.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
requires these wastes to be disposed of in a geologic repository
unless it approves an alternative disposal arrangement.  According to
DOE, a disposal facility for these wastes may not be available for
about 20 years.  DOE has estimated that over 7,000 cubic feet of
these wastes are in storage. 

--------------------
\2 Although the volume of wastes has declined, the radioactivity
contained in the wastes has remained relatively stable. 

      ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES FOR
      WASTE MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

The lack of new disposal facilities, the declining volume (but not
radioactivity) of commercial wastes, and the Barnwell facility's
limited capacity raise questions about whether a new approach to
waste management is needed.  States, compacts, and industry groups
have discussed alternatives to alleviate current conditions. 
Possible alternatives include repealing the compact acts so that
private industry can provide waste generators throughout the country
with disposal services or using one or more of DOE's disposal
facilities to dispose of commercial wastes.  To be successful, any
one of these approaches would have to address the willingnessor
unwillingnessof any state or states to serve as host for a disposal
facility.  The compact approach, for example, emphasizes state-level
control over low-level radioactive wastes.  Compacts not only control
the selection of facility sites, they also regulate the import and/or
export of wastes for treatment, storage, or disposal.  Also, compacts
have the flexibility to contract with other compacts and to realign
themselves (with congressional approval) into new compacts as
circumstances may warrant.  The Northwest compact, for example,
contracted with the Rocky Mountain compact to dispose of its wastes
at the Richland, Washington, facility. 

Because no state or compact has developed a new disposal facility,
some parties argue for discarding the compact approach in favor of
encouraging private industry to develop and operate disposal
facilities in response to market conditions.  They point out that the
reduced volume of commercial wastes will support only a few disposal
facilities.  Also, DOE expects to use commercial facilities to
dispose of 20 million to 40 million cubic feet of its low-level
radioactive wastes over the next 70 years.  Therefore, proponents
argue, private industryunencumbered by compact-imposed
restrictions--could meet the needs of both the commercial sector and
DOE.  In the short run, however, this approach could lead to the
early closure of the Richland and, perhaps, the Barnwell facilities. 
Washington State supports the compact approach and has said that it
probably would close the Richland facility if it lost the right to
exclude out-of-region wastes provided by the legislation establishing
the compact.  At a minimum, the state might decline to renew the
facility operator's lease when it expires in 2005.  South Carolina,
which, according to its governor, wants to stop taking radioactive
wastes from around the country, could take similar action regarding
the Barnwell facility.  Moreover, some believe that other states
could erect administrative barriers to the development of new
disposal facilities. 

Another alternative would be to make DOE responsible for disposing of
commercial low-level radioactive wastes at one or more of its
existing disposal facilities.  DOE's primary disposal facilities at
its Hanford and Nevada sites have larger available capacities than
DOE expects to use in cleaning up its nuclear facilities.  Moreover,
the capacity for disposing of mixed wastes at both of these locations
could be expanded.  Both of these sites, however, are located in
states whose objections to bearing too large a disposal burden led to
the compact acts.  These states have also opposed the importation of
wastes from other DOE facilities, and the states appear to have
little inclination or incentive to accept commercial wastes at these
sites.  Nevada, for example, has firmly opposed the federal program
to develop a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain for disposing of
highly radioactive wastes.  The state has opposed this program
despite authorization to enter into an agreement with DOE that could
provide the state with hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits
payments over several decades. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

GAO provided the Department of Energy (which uses commercial disposal
facilities and could, as an alternative to the compact approach,
dispose of commercial waste at its facilities), the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and each of the 10 compacts with a draft of
this report for review and comment.  The Department provided a number
of comments primarily directed at clarifying the definition of
long-term storage and provided other clarifying or technical
comments.  GAO incorporated these clarifying comments as appropriate. 
(See app.  V.) The Commission also provided clarifying comments,
which have been incorporated as appropriate.  (See app.  IV.) The
Northeast, Northwest, and Rocky Mountain compacts stated that GAO's
report appears accurate and fairly portrays the current situation. 
(See app.  III.) These compacts also provided comments to supplement,
clarify, and correct certain points in the text, which GAO
incorporated as appropriate.  The Southwestern compact noted that
GAO's report is factual and commented that repeal of the compact acts
would return the nation to the inequitable conditions that led to
passage of the 1980 act.  The Appalachian, Southeast, and Texas
compacts provided oral comments to supplement, clarify, and correct
certain points in the text, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. 
The Central Interstate, Central Midwest, and Midwest Interstate
compacts did not provide comments. 

INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

Each year, over 100 utility-owned nuclear-powered electrical
generating plants and thousands of commercial enterprises, such as
pharmaceutical manufacturers, hospitals, universities, and industrial
firms, generate various types of radioactive wastes.  Some types of
radioactive wastes, such as the used (spent) fuel from nuclear power
plants, are classified as high-level wastes.  Low-level radioactive
wastes include such things as metal components, filters, rags, paper,
liquid, glass, and protective clothing, as well as hardware,
equipment, and resins exposed to radioactivity or contaminated with
radioactive material at nuclear power plants.\1

Since 1986, the Department of Energy (DOE) has collected information
on the disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive
wastes.  As shown in table 1.1, utilities that operate nuclear power
plants dispose of the most wastes in terms of both volume and curies
of radioactivity.\2 In addition to utilities, DOE collects and
summarizes waste disposal information by other types of waste
generators: 

  -- Academic--including university hospitals and university medical
     and nonmedical research facilities. 

  -- Government, consisting of state and federal agencies, such as
     the Army, that are licensed and regulated by the Nuclear
     Regulatory Commission (NRC).\3

  -- Industry--including private research and development companies
     and manufacturers; nondestructive testing, mining, and fuel
     fabrication facilities; and radiopharmaceutical manufacturers. 

  -- Medical--including hospitals and clinics, research facilities,
     and private medical offices. 

                               Table 1.1
                
                 Cumulative Volume and Radioactivity of
                Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Disposed of
                by Types of Generators From 1986 Through
                                  1998

                (Cubic feet and curies of radioactivity
                             in thousands)

                                Volume              Radioactivity
                        ----------------------  ----------------------
Generator type          Cubic feet     Percent      Curies     Percent
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Academic                       420           3           9           0
Government                   1,210           8         329           5
Industry                     5,104          36         670          10
Medical                        215           1           1           0
Utility                      7,406          52       5,439          84
======================================================================
Total                       14,356         100       6,448         100
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Numbers may not add because of rounding. 

\a The table does not include over 10 million cubic feet of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes disposed of from
1992 through 1998 primarily at the Envirocare facility in Utah. 
These wastes, consisting of bulk materials resulting from cleaning up
retired nuclear sites, are only slightly contaminated with
radioactivity.  Information on the types of generators of these
wastes was not recorded. 

The generation of significant amounts of nuclear wastes began during
World War II as a result of federal efforts to develop atomic
weapons.  Beginning with the enactment of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, the federal government permitted commercial entities to
possess, own, and use radioactive materials.  Until the 1960s,
radioactive wastes produced by commercial organizations were disposed
of by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a predecessor of DOE, at
AEC's nuclear facilities.  A 1959 amendment to the Atomic Energy Act
authorized qualified states to assume regulatory oversight for the
possession, use, and disposal of many kinds of radioactive materials,
including the disposal of commercially generated low-level wastes.  A
year later, AEC announced that it would phase out the use of its
facilities for disposing of commercial low-level wastes.  Instead,
AEC or agreement states that had assumed regulatory authority from
AEC would license privately operated disposal facilities for these
wastes.\4

From 1962 through 1971, six commercial disposal facilities located in
Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, and Washington
state were licensed to operate.  Each of these facilities was
initially designed to use a relatively simple approach called
shallow land burial, in which wastes are placed into excavated
trenches.  The objective of shallow land burial is to isolate
radionuclides in the wastes from surface water and slow-moving
groundwater long enough to allow the wastes to undergo radioactive
decay to a level approaching that of the earth's natural background. 
By March 1979, however, the disposal facilities in Illinois,
Kentucky, and New York were permanently closed for a variety of
reasons, including leakage at the sites.  Only the sites in Nevada,
South Carolina, and Washington remained open to serve commercial
generators of low-level radioactive wastes. 

In July 1979, the Governor of Nevada ordered the disposal facility
for commercially generated low-level radioactive waste in that state,
located near the town of Beatty, shut down temporarily because a
number of shipments of wastes to the facility were found to have
leaking containers.  In October 1979, the Governor of Washington
ordered that state's disposal facility, which is located about 20
miles from the city of Richland on DOE's Hanford site, to shut down
after similar deficiencies were found in waste shipments bound for
the facility.  Also in 1979, the Governor of South Carolina said that
the Barnwell disposal facility in that state was receiving up to 90
percent of all commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes
and that decontamination of the disabled Three Mile Island nuclear
power plant would generate wastes amounting to almost 50 percent of
the total volume that the state had received in 1978.  For this
reason, the governor said that South Carolina would not accept wastes
from the disabled plant. 

Concerned about the potential loss of capacity for the disposal of
commercially generated low-level wastes, congressional committees
considered legislation in 1979 that would make the federal government
responsible for the disposal of these wastes.  The Governors of
Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington opposed this approach,
however, because they wanted states to have an opportunity to examine
alternatives to federal disposal.  By the end of that year,
Washington and Nevada had allowed their disposal facilities to
reopen, and the Congress had deferred consideration of legislation to
the next year.  Subsequently, a task force convened by the National
Governors' Association recommended that the states be responsible for
the development, as well as the regulation, of disposal facilities
for commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes.  Other state
government organizations supported this approach. 

Until concerns had emerged about the disposal capacity for
commercially generated low-level wastes, DOE and its predecessor
agencies had routinely disposed of low-level radioactive wastes
(including mixed wastes, which are low-level radioactive wastes
containing chemically hazardous constituents) at the commercial
disposal facilities.  However, to ensure uninterrupted disposal
capabilities for its needs, in 1979, DOE adopted a new policy of
disposing of its low-level wastes, including mixed wastes, at its own
sites and using commercial facilities only on a case-by-case basis. 

--------------------
\1 Low-level radioactive wastes also do not include waste products
from processing uranium ore. 

\2 A curie is a measure of the total radioactivity of a material. 

\3 NRC licenses and regulates the government's commercial low-level
radioactive wastes, which include all federally generated low-level
radioactive wastes except those from DOE and the Navy's nuclear
reactor propulsion program. 

\4 The privately owned disposal facilities would, however, be located
on federal- or state-owned land. 

   LOW-LEVEL WASTE POLICY ACT AND
   AMENDMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

Late in 1980, the Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act of 1980.  The act established as federal policy that
commercial low-level radioactive wastes can be most safely and
effectively managed by states on a regional basis.  The Congress
encouraged states to form regional compacts to meet their collective
disposal needs, minimize the number of new disposal sites, and more
equitably distribute the responsibility for the management of
low-level radioactive wastes among the states.  Congressional consent
was required for a compact to become effective.  As an inducement to
states to form compacts and develop disposal facilities, the act
stated that, beginning January 1, 1986, compacts could, under certain
conditions, restrict the use of their disposal facilities to
low-level radioactive wastes generated within their respective
regions. 

By the end of 1983, nearly 40 states had formed seven compacts but
none of the compacts had been granted congressional consent.  Also,
it had become clear that no new disposal facilities would be ready
for at least another 5 years.  Therefore, the Congress passed and, on
January 15, 1986, the President signed into law, the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.  At the same time,
the Congress granted consent to the seven regional compacts.  The
1995 act represented a compromise.  Waste generators in states that
were relying on the Barnwell, Beatty, and Richland disposal
facilities got a 7-year extension (until the end of 1992) of the
period during which they could ship wastes to those facilities.  On
the other hand, the three states hosting the existing disposal
facilitiesNevada, South Carolina, and Washington--received
additional assurances that other states or compacts would develop
their own disposal facilities. 

One key provision of the compact acts was that congressionally
approved compacts could ban the disposal of commercial low-level
wastes generated outside the compact's region.  A second, stronger
provision was a requirement that, if a state's disposal facility was
not operational by January 1, 1996, the state and other states in a
compact must begin taking title to, and possession of, their
generators' wastes at the request of the generators.  In 1992,
however, the U.S.  Supreme Court ruled that the take title
provision of the compact act was unconstitutional on the grounds that
the Congress could not compel the states to regulate the waste in a
particular way.\5 The Court held that the take-title provision could
be considered separately from the remainder of the act, which is
still valid. 

In addition, the 1985 compact act clarified the responsibility for
disposing of commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes
between the states and compacts and DOE.  Specifically, the Congress
made states and compacts responsible for providing disposal
facilities for all commercially generated low-level radioactive
wastes except for the most hazardous class of wastes, as defined by
NRC in its December 1982 regulations on the disposal of low-level
radioactive wastes.  The 1985 act made the federal governmentin
effect, DOE--responsible for disposing of the most hazardous class of
wastes. 

By 1983, NRC had issued regulations governing the selection of sites
for, and the construction, operation, decommissioning, and long-term
care of, new disposal facilities for low-level radioactive wastes. 
In these regulations, NRC divided commercially generated low-level
radioactive wastes into the following four categories: 

  -- Class A wastes have the lowest concentrations of specific
     radionuclides and can be disposed of with the least stringent
     requirements governing the waste's form and disposal packaging. 
     This class of wastes must be segregated from other wastes at the
     disposal site unless the wastes meet specified stability
     requirements intended to prevent structural degradation of the
     disposal facility. 

  -- Class B wastes contain higher concentrations of the
     shorter-lived radionuclides.  To ensure the stability of these
     wastes after disposal, these types of wastes must maintain their
     physical dimensions and form, and be packaged more stringently
     than class A wastes. 

  -- Class C wastes are wastes that must meet the form and stability
     requirements applicable to class B wastes and also measures
     taken at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent
     human intrusion.  Class C wastes must be protected by barriers
     to inadvertent human intrusion that would be expected to perform
     effectively for at least 500 years. 

  -- Greater-than-class-C wastes must be disposed of in a geologic
     repository unless NRC approves a specific proposal to dispose of
     such wastes in a disposal facility licensed under NRC's
     regulations for disposing of low-level radioactive wastes. 

--------------------
\5 New York v.  United States, 488 U.S.  1041 (1992). 

   DISPOSAL FACILITIES OPERATING
   SINCE THE 1985 COMPACT ACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

The 1985 compact act permitted the states of Nevada, South Carolina,
and Washington to restrict access to these facilities to waste
generators within their respective compact states, beginning on
January 1, 1993.  Shortly before that date, the Governor of Nevada
issued an executive order prohibiting the storage and/or disposal of
additional low-level radioactive wastes on state-owned land (such as
the Beatty facility) after December 31, 1992. 

South Carolina, which was a member of the eight-state Southeast
compact, agreed to permit waste generators located within and outside
of that compact to continue shipping low-level radioactive wastes to
the Barnwell disposal facility in that state until June 30, 1994. 
From then until mid-1995, access to the Barnwell facility was
restricted to waste generators within the Southeast compact region. 
During this 1-year period, waste generators in 33 states did not have
access to facilities for disposing of their low-level radioactive
wastes.\6

In July 1995, however, South Carolina withdrew from the Southeast
compact and reopened access to the Barnwell facility to waste
generators in all states except North Carolina.  South Carolina
prohibited the disposal of low-level wastes generated in North
Carolina because of what it regarded as the latter state's lack of
satisfactory progress in developing a new disposal facility for the
Southeast compact. 

Washington continued to permit the Richland disposal facility to
operate.  The state, however, restricted the use of the facility to
waste generators within the eight member states of the Northwest
compact (of which Washington was a member) and, by contract, within
the three states that comprised the Rocky Mountain compact. 

In the early 1990s, a new facility for disposing of certain types of
low-level radioactive wastes and mixed low-level wastes was licensed
and developed in Utah.  This facility, which is located about 80
miles west of Salt Lake City, is owned and operated by Envirocare of
Utah.  The facility treats and disposes of wastes that are lightly
contaminated with radioactivity.  Originally, DOE used what became
the Envirocare site to dispose of waste products from the cleanup of
a former uranium ore-processing facility at Salt Lake City.  Then, in
1988, Envirocare obtained a state license authorizing the company to
use the site to dispose of naturally occurring radioactive materials. 
Subsequently, in March 1991, Envirocare applied for and received a
state license to dispose of class A low-level radioactive wastes
limited to the specific radionuclides and maximum concentrations of
radioactivity stated in the license.  In the allowable concentrations
of radionuclides, the low-level radioactive wastes authorized for
disposal at the Envirocare facility were only mildly contaminated
compared to the wastes typically disposed of at the Barnwell and
Richland facilities.  Although Utah is a member of a congressionally
approved compact, the Envirocare facility was not developed in
response to the 1980 and 1985 compact acts and is not a regional
disposal facility serving only waste generators within a compact
region.  Instead, the facility is permitted by the host compact to
accept low-level radioactive wastes for disposal from waste
generators located outside the host compact's region.  The license
for the Envirocare facility has been amended to authorize the
disposal of most class A low-level radioactive wastes.  Also, the
Northwest compact has authorized Envirocare to accept operational
wastes as well as cleanup wastes. 

Currently, the Barnwell, Richland, and Envirocare disposal facilities
collectively serve 10 compacts made up of 44 states as well as the 8
states (the compact acts define the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico as states) that are not affiliated with a compact.  (See fig. 
1.1 for the alignment of states into compacts.)

   Figure 1.1:  States'
   Memberships in Compacts

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Shaded states are not affiliated with a compact. 

Source:  Low-Level Waste Forum. 

--------------------
\6 Except slightly contaminated bulk wastes eligible for disposal at
the new Envirocare disposal facility in Utah. 

   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

Concerned that no new facilities for disposing of low-level
radioactive wastes have opened under the auspices of the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended, the Chairman,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested that we
review

  -- the status of states' and compacts' efforts to establish new
     disposal facilities;

  -- the status of the management and disposal of commercially
     generated low-level radioactive wastes, including the continued
     availability of the three existing disposal facilities, the
     volume of wastes disposed of at these facilities, and the
     wastes, if any, that are not authorized for disposal at the
     existing facilities; and

  -- alternative approaches to managing and disposing of commercially
     generated low-level radioactive wastes. 

To determine the status of states' and compacts' efforts to establish
new disposal facilities, we discussed states' and compacts' progress
in developing disposal facilities with officials of the Appalachian,
Central, Central Midwest, Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Texas
compacts.  We also had similar discussions with officials of the
designated host states of California, Connecticut, Illinois,
Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington.  We also attended the fall
1998 and spring 1999 meetings of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Forum, which is an association of representatives, appointed by
governors and compact commissions, of each host state and compact. 
The Forum was established to facilitate states' and compacts'
implementation of the 1980 and 1985 compact acts.  In addition, we
discussed the status of compacts' and states' efforts to develop new
disposal facilities with officials of NRC; DOE's national low-level
waste program; the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the lobbying
organization for the nuclear industry; and the Nuclear Information
and Resources Service, which is an organization based in Washington,
D.C., that is opposed to nuclear power. 

To determine the status of the management and disposal of all
low-level radioactive wastes, including the continued availability of
existing disposal facilities, we obtained information and related
documentation from many of the compacts and states listed above.  In
addition, we visited the Barnwell, Envirocare, and Richland disposal
facilities and discussed this issue with officials responsible for
operating these facilities (Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC; Envirocare of
Utah; and US Ecology, respectively).  We also discussed this issue
with the Vice President for Nuclear Power of the Commonwealth Edison
Company.  We did not evaluate the quality of either the management of
wastes prior to their disposal or of the operation of disposal
facilities. 

To determine the volume of wastes disposed of, we met with officials
in DOE's National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Program within its
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.  Using
manifests for tracking and accounting for the transportation and
disposal of low-level radioactive wastes, the national program office
has, since 1986, routinely collected information on the disposal of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes in a Manifest
Information Management System. With the assistance of these
officials, we extracted data from this system to analyze the volume
and radioactivity of low-level radioactive wastes disposed of from
1986 through 1998.  We also incorporated into our analyses disposal
information recorded by Envirocare of Utah and reported to the
Northwest Interstate compact from 1992 through 1997, when
Envirocare's disposal records were not yet included within DOE's
manifest information system.  Beginning in January 1998, Envirocare's
records were incorporated into DOE's information system.  On a
monthly basis, operators of the disposal facilities record
information from shipping manifests that accompany wastes as they
arrive at the disposal sites and then enter the information into
DOE's manifest system.  While we did not independently verify the
reliability of the disposal data, facility operators sometimes
spot-check incoming waste shipments to assure themselves that the
volumes and curie information recorded on the manifests are accurate
and that discrepancies are rare. 

DOE's information management system collects information only on
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes that are disposed
of at the three existing facilities.  The system does not collect
information on the amounts of wastes actually generated or the
amounts of wastes that individual waste generators may be storing. 
Our discussions with officials of DOE, NRC, the Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Forum, compacts and states, and operators of disposal
facilities did not reveal the existence of any central collection
system for information on stored low-level radioactive wastes. 
Therefore, we did not analyze the volume of wastes generated and
stored, rather than disposed of, because to do so would have required
that we identify and contact, if not visit, thousands of licensees to
develop an accurate indication of the amounts and types of wastes
generated and stored.  During the course of our review, however, we
did collect from a few states the results of their surveys of waste
generators, including the amounts of wastes being stored by the
generators. 

To determine what wastes or waste generators, if any, are not
authorized for disposal at the existing facilities, we discussed this
issue with the parties mentioned above. 

To identify and analyze alternative approaches to managing and
disposing of commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes, we
discussed this issue with many of the parties listed above.  In
addition, we attended a national summit meeting on low-level
radioactive wastes, hosted by the National Conference of State
Legislatures in April 1999, at which this issue was discussed. 

Our work was performed from September 1998 through August 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

We provided DOE (which uses commercial disposal facilities and could,
as an alternative to the compact approach, dispose of commercial
waste at its facilities), NRC, and each of the 10 compacts with a
draft of this report for review and comment.  DOE provided a number
of comments primarily directed at clarifying the definition of
long-term storage and provided other clarifying or technical
comments.  We incorporated these clarifying comments as appropriate. 
(See appendix V.) NRC also provided clarifying comments which have
been incorporated as appropriate.  (See appendix IV.) The Northeast,
Northwest, and Rocky Mountain compacts provided letters commenting on
our report, which appear in appendix III.  The Southwestern compact
provided comments in the form of an electronic message from the
compact's executive director.  The Appalachian, Southeast, and Texas
compacts provided oral comments.  The Central Interstate, Central
Midwest, and Midwest Interstate compacts did not provide comments. 

The Northeast compact stated that, overall, our report is a factual
and complete presentation of the subject and correctly identifies the
primary reasonsparticularly the controversial nature of low-level
waste disposalfor the current situation.  The compact also stated
that our report correctly notes that discarding the compact system
could result in the loss of the Richland disposal facility.  The
compact also provided several comments to supplement the information
in our report and clarify certain points in the text, which we
incorporated as appropriate. 

The Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts stated that our report
appears accurate and fairly portrays the current situation.  Also,
both compacts provided several comments to supplement the information
in our report and clarify certain points in the text, which we
incorporated as appropriate. 

The Southwestern compact commented that the report is factual.  The
compact added that if the compact acts were to be repealed, then the
nation would return to essentially the same conditions of inequity in
the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes that led to passing the
compact acts 20 years ago. 

STATUS OF COMPACTS' AND STATES'
EFFORTS TO DEVELOP NEW DISPOSAL
CAPACITY
============================================================ Chapter 2

No compact or state has successfully developed a new disposal
facility for low-level radioactive wastes under the auspices of the
1980 and 1985 compact acts.  One stateCaliforniasuccessfully
licensed a facility, but the Department of the Interior has not
transferred the proposed site to the state.  Other states have
applied for licenses from their state regulatory agencies, but their
applications were ultimately denied.  By the end of 1998, such
efforts to site new disposal facilities cost compacts and states
almost $600 million.  Yet, states' initiatives to develop new
disposal facilities have now come to a standstill. 

Public and political opposition continues to underlie the lack of
progress.  For example, states, such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
that attempted to find communities willing to volunteer sites for
disposal facilities were unsuccessful.  Also, changes in the
conditions affecting the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes
have contributed to the current lack of efforts to develop new
disposal facilities.  For example, waste generators have reduced the
volume of their normal operating wastes and almost all waste
generators currently have access to disposal facilities.  Moreover,
states' efforts to develop new disposal facilities have been costly. 
As a result, at least one state that had been attempting to develop a
disposal facility is now exploring the feasibility of developing a
facility for safely storing low-level radioactive wastes for 100 to
300 years as an alternative to near-term disposal.  (Appendix I
provides details of the status of efforts of the 10 compacts and 8
unaffiliated states.)

   COMPACTS AND STATES HAVE NOT
   DEVELOPED NEW DISPOSAL
   FACILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

We found that states, acting alone or within compacts, have
collectively spent about $600 million over the last 18 years
attempting to locate and develop about 10 sites for disposing of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes.  None have been
successful, and no state is now actively attempting to develop a
disposal facility.  In effect, the system of new regional disposal
facilities envisioned when the 1980 and 1985 compact acts were
enacted has not occurred.  Table 2.1 summarizes the current status of
state and compact projects to establish new disposal facilities. 

                               Table 2.1
                
                  Status of Compacts and Unaffiliated
                                 States

                         (Dollars in millions)

State compacts (Host state and  Status of disposal  Development
state members)                  siting efforts      costs
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Appalachian compact             Halted.             $37.0
(Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, West Virginia)

Central compact (Nebraska,      License             95.6
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana,    application denied
Oklahoma)                       by Nebraska.
                                Nebraska to
                                withdraw from
                                compact.

Central Midwest compact         Halted.             95.8
(Illinois, Kentucky)

Midwest compact (No host        Halted.             Not available
state, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
Wisconsin)

Northeast compact (Dual hosts:  Connecticut:        15.2
Connecticut, New Jersey)        halted disposal
                                facility siting,
                                considering
                                storage for 100     9.7
                                years or longer.
                                New Jersey: halted
                                siting effort.

Northwest compact (Washington,  Uses existing       Not applicable
Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho,          Richland disposal
Montana, Oregon, Utah,          facility located
Wyoming)                        on DOE's Hanford
                                site.

Rocky Mountain compact (No      Contracted with     Not applicable
host state, Colorado, Nevada,   Northwest compact
New Mexico)                     to use the
                                Richland facility.

Southeast compact (North        North Carolina      112.0
Carolina, Alabama, Florida,     halted licensing
Georgia, Mississippi,           process for
Tennessee, Virginia             disposal facility,
                                shut down its
                                siting agency,
                                and, on July 26,
                                1999, enacted
                                legislation
                                withdrawing from
                                the compact.

Southwestern compact            Halted.             92.6
(California, Arizona, North
Dakota, South Dakota)

Texas compact (Texas, Maine,    Halted, initial     52.0
Vermont)                        license
                                application for
                                original site
                                denied by state's
                                licensing
                                authority.

Unaffiliated states
----------------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia            No plans to site a  Not applicable
                                facility.

Massachusetts                   Halted.             Not available

Michigan                        No efforts under    12.6
                                way.

New Hampshire                   No plans to site a  Not applicable
                                facility.

New York                        Halted.             62.7

Puerto Rico                     No plans to site a  Not applicable
                                facility.

Rhode Island                    No plans to site a  Not applicable
                                facility.

South Carolina                  Host state for      Not applicable
                                Barnwell facility.

======================================================================
Totals                                              $585.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO, from various agency documents. 

No state is actively attempting to develop a disposal facility. 
After years of effort and multi-million-dollar expenditures, all of
the states that had started programs to identify candidate sites for
facilities and to license and develop these sites have essentially
stopped their programs.  The Southwestern compact has come the
closest to opening a disposal facility.  The host state for the
compactCalifornialicensed a facility.  Efforts to find a site,
investigate its suitability, and license the facility cost about $93
million.  However, the site chosen is on federal land, and the
Department of the Interior has not agreed to transfer the land to the
state.  Thus, California's activities are on hold indefinitely.  In
the early years of the legislation that created the compact, Illinois
identified a candidate site, but the site was eventually rejected. 
Subsequently, that state decided, largely on the basis of reduced
quantities of low-level radioactive wastes, to postpone the
development of a disposal facility until around 2010.  In Nebraska
and Texas, host states for the Central compact and the Texas compact,
respectively, state agencies denied license applications for disposal
facilities.  Efforts to site a facility in Nebraska cost $95.6
million and in Texas, $52 million.  The Southeast compact spent the
most money trying to site a disposal facility in North Carolina.  It
spent $112 million before efforts were shut down. 

Of the unaffiliated states, New York spent about $62.7 million trying
to site a facility before suspending its program.  Michigan, which
was once the state designated by the Midwest compact to develop a
regional disposal facility, was expelled from the compact because
members decided that Michigan had unreasonable criteria that
essentially precluded the state from finding a suitable site. 
Massachusetts established a program to develop its own disposal
facility, but the program did not progress to the point of
identifying candidate sites.  The other unaffiliated states have no
plans to site a disposal facility. 

   EFFORTS SUSPENDED FOR SEVERAL
   REASONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Several factors have combined to affect the development of new
low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities around the country. 
Initially, public and political resistance delayed the development of
new facilities.  In recent years, several states and compacts have
suspended their siting efforts because of the (1) availability of
disposal capacity both in and out of their compact regions, (2)
declining volumes of wastes, and (3) rising costs of developing
disposal facilities. 

      PUBLIC AND POLITICAL
      OPPOSITION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

The underlying and recurring reason that no disposal facilities have
been developed under the 1980 and 1985 acts is public and political
opposition.  We discussed this concern in our 1995 report on the
status of compacts' and states' efforts to develop new disposal
capacity.\1 In that report, we noted that in 1993, NRC's staff had
reviewed the experiences of 13 states under the compact acts. 
Although NRC's staff had identified seven factors that, in their
judgment, had affected states' progress, one of the factorspublic
and political concern over the development of new disposal
facilitiespredominated.  More recently, a policy associate of the
National Conference of State Legislatures, writing in that
organization's legislative report, characterized the political and
public concern factor as [a] lack of financial and political
will.\2 The author reasoned that strong political support at the
state level must be garnered from the beginning, so that the siting
process is not susceptible to being derailed in the later stages. 

The experience in California is an example showing how political
commitment at one level can move the process of developing a disposal
facility forward and how the lack of commitment at another level can
frustrate the goals of the 1980 and 1985 compact acts.  California
successfully completed its administrative and judicial procedures for
licensing the construction and operation of a disposal facility for
low-level radioactive wastes to be located on land in Ward Valley,
California, that it had requested, in July 1992, to purchase from the
federal government.  The Department of the Interior, however, has not
transferred the proposed site to the state so that the facility can
be built.  Although Interior officials had concluded, on the basis of
a study by the National Academy of Sciences, that the proposed
facility could be operated safely, in 1997, Interior called for
additional testing of the safety and suitability of the site.  Then,
in March 1999, Interior proposed that the Department and the state
explore alternatives to the proposed transfer of the land. 

Recent voluntary siting efforts by states also demonstrate the effect
of public and political opposition.  For example, in March 1996,
Pennsylvania began a voluntary siting process for the Appalachian
compact.  The volunteer process empowered municipalities in
Pennsylvania to make their own choices about hosting a facility. 
From March 1996 through April 1998, staff of the contractor that the
state selected traveled more than 90,000 miles statewide and
participated in more than 340 outreach meetings.  Yet, no
municipality expressed an interest in hosting a low-level waste
disposal facility.  On December 31, 1998, the state's Department of
Environmental Protection suspended the siting project after
discussing the issue with the Department's low-level waste advisory
committee and the Appalachian compact.  Similarly, both Connecticut
and New Jersey, dual hosts of the Northeast compact, developed
voluntary siting plans.  According to the Northeast compact, several
potential volunteers discussed the concept of proposing a site for
the state's disposal facility with the state's siting agency.  No
volunteers came forward, however, before Connecticut put its program
on hold.  New Jersey's siting board interacted with several
communities interested in exploring the possibility of volunteering
to host that state's disposal facility, according to the Northeast
compact.  These communities were eventually eliminated from
consideration, however, either because of votes or other actions by
the communities to withdraw from consideration or because the siting
board eliminated the communities' potential sites. 

Public and political opposition sometimes can be couched in
environmental terms.  For example, on April 16, 1999, the U.S. 
District Court issued a preliminary injunction against Nebraska and
others, finding that there is good reason to think that Nebraska's
denial, on safety and environmental grounds, of a license to
construct and operate a disposal facility was politically
preordained.\3 Similarly, in Texas, a state licensing commission
denied a license application for a proposed site on the basis of
safety and socioeconomic questions even though its own staff found
the site to be acceptable. 

--------------------
\1 Radioactive Waste:  Status of Commercial Low-Level Waste
Facilities (GAO/RCED-95-67, May 5, 1995). 

\2 The Challenge of Siting Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facilities,
National Conference of State Legislatures, State Legislative Report
(Vol.  24, No.  3). 

\3 Entergy Arkansas, Inc.  v Nebraska, __ F Supp.2d--, 1999 WL
225849, (D.  Neb.  1999) (p.  12). 

      ACCESS TO DISPOSAL
      FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

Almost all compacts and states currently have access to one or more
of three low-level radioactive waste disposal facilitiesBarnwell in
South Carolina, Richland in Washington State, and Envirocare in Utah. 
Consequently, states and compacts have cited the adequate disposal
capacity that currently exists as one of the reasons for suspending
their disposal programs.  For example, Illinois halted its siting
efforts, in part, because of the continued availability of disposal
capacity for Illinois waste generators.  Similarly, in 1996, the
Massachusetts low-level waste management board voted to cease all
in-state siting efforts because of the renewed access to the Barnwell
facility and the expanded availability of the Envirocare facility. 

One of the reasons for suspending activities that the Midwest compact
cited was that its generators have access to existing low-level
radioactive waste disposal facilities that appear to have sufficient
capacity to accept wastes for a lengthy period of time.  They
reasoned that unexpected events involving existing, privately
operated disposal facilities in South Carolina, Utah, and possibly
other locations, have created disincentives to develop new disposal
capacity.  Similarly, for the Appalachian compact, one of the factors
cited by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for
suspending its program was that the current disposal capacity at the
Barnwell and Envirocare disposal facilities is projected to be
available to Pennsylvania generators for at least 25 years. 

Furthermore, some states are not too concerned about possible closure
of the current facilities.  For example, Illinois noted that the loss
of capacity at a site like Barnwell would not necessarily constitute
a waste management crisis because wastes could be stored temporarily. 
Also, when New Jersey's siting board suspended its siting process,
the board noted the continuing availability of out-of-state disposal
capacity.  The board also noted that in the event that the Barnwell
facility is closed to waste generators in New Jersey, these
generators should be able to store their wastes on-site for the short
term. 

      REDUCTION IN WASTE VOLUME
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

The unanticipated reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive
wastes has also contributed to the suspension of efforts to find
sites for new disposal facilities.  For example, low-level waste
generators in the Midwest compact have successfully instituted waste
management and treatment practices including waste minimization,
compaction, and incineration.  These practices continue to
dramatically reduce the amount of wastes annually shipped to disposal
facilities.  Wastes in the region shipped for disposal were reduced
about 83 percent--from a high of 114,700 cubic feet in 1989 to 20,000
in 1996.  Similarly, the volume of low-level radioactive wastes
disposed of from Pennsylvania has decreased from more than 225,000
cubic feet in 1991 to less than 30,000 in 1997, or about an
87-percent reduction.  This reduction was one of the factors that led
to the suspension of the search for a low-level waste disposal
facility in Pennsylvania for the Appalachian compact. 

The Northeast and Central Midwest compacts also noted reductions in
the volume of disposed waste.  For the Northeast compact, New
Jersey's siting board suspended the siting process, noting the
ongoing efforts of the state's low-level radioactive waste generators
to minimize the volume of wastes requiring disposal.  For the Central
Midwest compact, Illinois noted the 75-percent decline in the waste
volume shipped from Illinois from 1986 through 1997.  Over 200,000
cubic feet was shipped in 1986, but less than 50,000 cubic feet was
shipped in 1997. 

      HIGH COST OF DISPOSAL
      FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4

The high cost of a disposal facility has also affected decisions to
suspend low-level waste disposal programs in some states.  The
Midwest compact, in halting its disposal program, noted that the
estimated cost of new disposal facilities had risen significantly. 
The compact estimated that the cost of developing a disposal facility
would range from $105 million to $216 million, not counting the
annual cost to operate the facility. 

When the reduced volume of wastes is considered with the high cost of
construction, a disposal facility is even more costly.  For example,
because of the decline in volume, Illinois developed an economic
model to evaluate various development strategies.  The model
indicated that developing the disposal facility, given the reduced
volumes, would yield a facility that was not economically viable
(assuming that waste disposal charges would be based on waste
volume).  Furthermore, the facility would not become economically
viable until waste generation rates increase due to the
decommissioning of nuclear power stationssometime around 2010. 

   SOME STATES HAVE EXPRESSED
   INTEREST IN LONG-TERM STORAGE
   OF WASTES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

As a result of difficulties in developing disposal facilities and
conditions such as relatively low volumes of low-level radioactive
wastes, at least one state's siting agencyConnecticut's Hazardous
Waste Management Service--is considering storing these wastes for 100
years or more using a concept called assured isolation storage. 
Unlike disposal facilities, where the emphasis is placed on the
natural characteristics of a site, assured isolation primarily relies
on engineered barriers and institutional controls, such as periodic
inspection and maintenance, to ensure public safety over the
prospective storage period (on the order of 100 to 300 years).  Waste
management agencies in other states, such as North Carolina and
Texas, have also explored various approaches to storing wastes on a
long-term basis. 

Long-term storage is an interim, rather than final, solution to the
issue of the long-term management of commercial low-level radioactive
wastes.  Eventually, a permanent solution for longer-lived
wasteseither permanent disposal or continued, monitored
storagewould be required.  Proponents of assured isolation maintain
that the concept (1) preserves future management options including
continued isolation, retrieval, recycling, or even potentially
closure in place; (2) permits isolation facilities to be safely
colocated with existing nuclear facilities; and (3) might permit
states to postpone disposal decisions until more favorable conditions
exist or until the need for disposal capacity becomes more urgent. 

Critics of assured isolation question these asserted advantages. 
They also point out that it may also be difficult to make adequate
arrangements to ensure that sufficient funds are available for this
alternative followed by the recovery of some or all of the wastes
from an isolation facility followed by the permanent disposal of
these wastes in a disposal facility.  In effect, the critics argue,
long-term storage creates a burden on future generations.  There are
also legal concerns about whether a long-term storage facility, such
as an assured isolation facility, developed by a compact would comply
with the requirement for permanent disposal contained in the
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.  Texas'
low-level radioactive waste authority, having been denied a disposal
license, is now considering new options for siting, including
developing a facility for assured isolation, or long-term storage, of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes.  In response to
a question on whether a law requiring the development of a facility
for assured isolation of wastes would satisfy the state's compact
obligations, the state's attorney general concluded that such a
facility would comply with the state's obligations to manage and
provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes generated
within the compact.  However, the attorney general also concluded
that a facility for the assured isolation of wastes would not
currently satisfy the state's obligation to permanently dispose of
these wastes. 

Connecticut's Hazardous Waste Management Service has also decided to
consider the assured isolation of low-level radioactive wastes
generated within the state as an alternative to the disposal of these
wastes.  That state's efforts to find a site for a disposal facility
have been unsuccessful, and the accessibility of the Barnwell and
Envirocare disposal facilities to the state's waste generators have
reduced the perceived urgency of developing a disposal facility. 
According to a draft legal analysis prepared for the Service, an
assured isolation facility could be established and maintained in
accordance with the law if its development is carefully planned and
legal issues are properly taken into account.\4

Finally, in December 1997, North Carolina, whose waste generators do
not have access to the Barnwell facility, shut down its project to
develop a disposal facility for low-level radioactive wastes pending
any changes in funding or direction.  The state's siting authority
asked the legislature to consider a plan for storing wastes as an
alternative to the disposal project.  The authority wanted to study
the possibility of storing waste materials containing only relatively
short-lived radionuclides separate from wastes contaminated with
longer-lived radionuclides.  By segregating wastes in this manner,
the authority said, it might be possible to recycle the waste
materials containing short-lived radionuclides or to dispose of these
materials as normal trash following an appropriate storage period. 
Waste materials contaminated with longer-lived radionuclides could
eventually be disposed of in a much smaller disposal facility than
the state had planned to develop for the Southeast compact.  Instead
of accepting the authority's request, the legislature enacted, and on
July 26, 1999, the governor signed, legislation withdrawing the state
from the Southeast compact.\5

Among other things, the legislation essentially shut down the siting
authority and forbade its licensing agency to issue a license for a
disposal facility until further notice. 

--------------------
\4 The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service commissioned
the analysis of certain legal issues surrounding the concept of
assured isolation for the management of low-level radioactive wastes
in Connecticut. 

\5 General Assembly of North Carolina Session Law 1999-357, July 26,
1999. 

MOST WASTE GENERATORS CURRENTLY
HAVE ACCESS TO DISPOSAL CAPACITY
============================================================ Chapter 3

Generally, commercial generators of low-level radioactive wastes
throughout the nation currently have access to one or more of the
three existing disposal facilities.  The Barnwell facility in South
Carolina opened in 1971.  Currently, waste generators in all states
except North Carolina have access to that facility.  The Richland
facility in Washington opened in 1965.  Waste generators within the
11 states making up the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts have
access to the facility.  Finally, the Envirocare facility in Utah has
been accepting low-level radioactive wastes since 1991 and at present
primarily provides disposal to all states except those in the
Northwest compact.  Most low-level radioactive wastes disposed of at
that facility are large-volume wastes that are slightly contaminated
with very low concentrations of radioactivity.  Because the volume of
wastes from normal operations has declined dramatically, the Barnwell
facility is large enough to accommodate waste generators for about 10
more years and the other two disposal facilities have enough
remaining capacity to last longer. 

The wastes that do not have access to disposal are (1) mixed
low-level wastes that do not meet license criteria for disposal at
the Envirocare facility, (2) most of the low-level radioactive wastes
generated in North Carolina, and (3) the most concentrated class of
low-level radioactive wastesgreater-than-class-C wastes--for which
disposal is DOE's responsibility. 

   THE CHANGING LOW-LEVEL
   RADIOACTIVE WASTE SITUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Since 1986, the volume, if not the radioactivity, of low-level
radioactive wastes produced from commercial nuclear operations and
disposed of each year as normal operating wastes has declined.  In
the 1990s, however, the decline in operating waste has been offset,
in part, by bulk wastes, such as contaminated soil, generated from
dismantling and cleaning up nuclear facilities. 

In 1986, the first year after the 1985 compact act was passed,
commercial waste generators disposed of almost 1.8 million cubic feet
of low-level radioactive wastes from normal operations.  Since then,
the volume, but not the radioactivity, of wastes from normal
operations has steadily declined.  By 1998, the amount was over 1
million cubic feet less than in 1986.  (Fig.  3.1 shows the changing
volume of wastes and fig.  3.2 shows the radioactivity in these
wastes.) However, companies have also begun to dispose of bulk
materials generated from dismantling and/or cleaning up nuclear
sites.\1

   Figure 3.1:  Volume of
   Low-Level Wastes Disposed of
   From 1986 Through 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Sources:  GAO, from information obtained from DOE's manifest
information management system for commercial low-level radioactive
wastes and from Envirocare of Utah. 

   Figure 3.2:  Radioactivity in
   Low-Level Wastes Disposed of
   From 1986 Through 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Sources:  GAO, from information obtained from DOE's manifest
information management system for commercial low-level radioactive
wastes and from Envirocare of Utah. 

The cleanup wastes shown in figure 3.1, although comprising about 58
percent of the total volume of low-level radioactive wastes disposed
of after 1990, contain just a few hundred curies of radioactivity. 
As discussed below, these wastes were disposed of at the Envirocare,
Utah, disposal facility.  In 1998, for example, more than 1 million
cubic feet of commercially generated cleanup wastes were disposed of
at the Envirocare facility; these wastes contained only about 127
curies of radioactivity.\2 In contrast, the approximately 195,000
cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes disposed of at Barnwell in
the same year contained over 330,000 curies of radioactivity. 

The decline in the estimated volume of low-level radioactive wastes
is illustrated by the experience in Illinois.  In 1991, the volume of
wastes projected to be disposed of at a planned facility in that
state over a 50-year period was about 9 million cubic feet, or
180,000 cubic feet per year.  This projection did not include wastes
from eventually dismantling and cleaning up the sites of the 14
nuclear power plants located in the state after the retirement of
these plants.  Seven years later, the state's nuclear safety
department and other parties reanalyzed the projected volume of
wastes.  The new analysis estimated that the total volume of
low-level radioactive wastes requiring disposal over the next 50
years is about 3.7 million cubic feet, or an average of 73,800 cubic
feet per yeara nearly 60-percent reduction.  This analysis included
wastes from decommissioning nuclear power plants, which represent 5
to 10 times the volume of normal operating wastes. 

The decommissioning of nuclear power plants after they have been
retired will eventually increase the volume of commercially generated
low-level radioactive wastes.  It is uncertain, however, just when
and at what rate this will occur.  By the end of 2010, the existing
operating licenses for 8 of the 104 plants that are currently
licensed to operate will expire.  The operating licenses for another
51 plants will expire by the end of 2020.  If these plants operate
during their licensed periods and then are retired and immediately
dismantled, the demand for disposal capacity could increase
significantly after 2010.  The Nuclear Energy Institute, for example,
has estimated that each nuclear generating plant that is retired will
generate about 250,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes.\3
On the basis of the Institute's estimates of when nuclear power
plants might be retired and then begin disposing of decommissioning
wastes, nearly 25 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes
from decommissioning retired plants might be disposed of during the
next 35 years.  Figure 3.2 illustrates the increase in
decommissioning wastes on the basis of the Institute's projections
through 2020.  The information in the figure assumes that (1) the
amount of normal operating wastes disposed of each year will be equal
to the annual average of the amount disposed of from 1993 through
1998 and (2) each plant will be decommissioned immediately after the
end of its current licensed operating period. 

   Figure 3.3:  Estimates of
   Future Increase in Wastes From
   Decommissioning

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO from information provided by the Nuclear Energy
Institute. 

There is, however, uncertainty in forecasting the amount of
commercial low-level radioactive wastes from decommissioning nuclear
power plants.  For example, the economic deregulation of the
electricity industry could make some nuclear power plants
uneconomical, and therefore, subject to early retirement.\4 On the
other hand, NRC permits utilities to seek extensions of plant
licenses for up to 20 years.  Two utilities have sought plant life
extensions, for a total of five operating nuclear power plants,
another utility has announced that it intends to apply for a license
extension for one of its plants, and other utilities are considering
life extensions.  To the extent that utilities obtain extensions of
the operating licenses for their plants and operate the plants for
longer periods, the decommissioning of the plants would be postponed. 
Finally, there is uncertainty about how soon after retirement nuclear
power plants would be decommissioned because NRC does not require
immediate dismantling upon retirement.  In fact, utilities may
maintain their retired plants in a safe shutdown condition for
decades before dismantling them.\5

--------------------
\1 The separation between operating wastes and cleanup wastes is not
well defined.  Operational wastes are generally defined as wastes
that come from the nuclear power industry or from any entity that
uses radioactive materials as part of an ongoing operation (even if
that operation occurs only once every 2 years).  Such wastes
include materials like sludge and debris.  In contrast, cleanup
wastes are low-level radioactive wastes that have been contaminated
by past activities; furthermore there is no longer any ongoing
operation at the plant.  Cleanup is a one-time event and, although
the waste volume may be large, it is also very low in radioactivity. 

\2 Although DOE's manifest information management system recorded 127
curies of radioactivity in low-level radioactive wastes disposed of
at the Envirocare facility in 1998, information that Envirocare of
Utah provided to us showed that 290 curies worth of radioactivity
were disposed of at the facility in that year.  Because both amounts
are relatively small, we did not reconcile the reason(s) for the
difference.  To provide consistency with volume and radioactivity
amounts compiled by DOE for the Barnwell and Richland disposal
facilities, we have used the amounts shown in DOE's manifest
information management system for the Envirocare facility. 

\3 The volume of low-level radioactive wastes from decommissioning
nuclear power plants is illustrated by recent experience at two
plants.  The Fort St.  Vrain plant in Colorado was retired in August
1989.  This plant was relatively small and used a technology that is
not typical in nuclear power plants.  Over the next 7 years, a total
of nearly 143,000 cubic feet of wastes was shipped to the Beatty and
Richland disposal facilities.  The Trojan plant in Oregon, which was
a large, modern plant using a reactor technology similar to many
nuclear power plants, was retired in November 1992.  Since then,
nearly 181,500 cubic feet of wastes has been shipped to the Richland
disposal facility.  Officials at that plant estimate that about
400,000 cubic feet of wastes will eventually be shipped to the
Richland facility. 

\4 For more discussion, see Nuclear Regulation:  Better Oversight
Needed to Ensure Accumulation of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power
Plants (GAO/RCED-99-75, May 3, 1999). 

\5 The National Research Council is preparing to study the sources,
types, and volumes of commercial low-level radioactive wastes to be
generated in the future, including wastes from decommissioning
retired nuclear power plants. 

   ALMOST ALL WASTE GENERATORS
   CURRENTLY HAVE ACCESS TO ONE OR
   MORE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Collectively, the Barnwell, Richland, and Envirocare disposal
facilities currently provide disposal capacity for almost all types
of low-level radioactive wastes and almost all waste generators. 
(Appendix II provides additional information on these three
facilities.) The Barnwell facility accepts class A, B, and C
low-level radioactive wastes generated in all states except North
Carolina.  The Richland facility accepts class A, B, and C low-level
radioactive wastes produced in the 11 states that make up the
Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts.  The Envirocare of Utah
facility accepts only class A low-level radioactive wastes and
low-level mixed wastes; moreover, the facility may dispose of wastes
that contain only specific radionuclides in concentrations within the
terms of the facility's license.  Within these limits, waste
generators in 44 states--all states except the 8 states of the
Northwest compact--may dispose of their wastes at this facility. 

Table 3.1 shows, for 1998, the volume of low-level radioactive wastes
disposed of at each of the three operating disposal facilities by
compact and state.  Although the Envirocare facility disposed of over
five times as much volume of wastes as the Barnwell facility, 99
percent of the radioactivity was disposed of at the Barnwell
facility. 

                                        Table 3.1
                         
                          Volume and Radioactivity of Low-Level
                          Wastes Disposed of in 1998 by Compact,
                                 State, and Disposal Site

                                  (Volume in cubic feet)

                             Envirocare       Barnwell        Richland         Total
                           --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------
Compact/State              Volume  Curies  Volume  Curies  Volume  Curies  Volume  Curies
-------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------  ------
=========================================================================================
Appalachian                32,448       0  18,064  44,260                  50,512  44,260
Delaware                                      174       0                     174       0
Maryland                    5,600       0   2,004     531                   7,605     532
Pennsylvania\a             26,848       0  15,838  43,691                  42,686  43,691
West Virginia                                  48      37                      48      37
=========================================================================================
Central                       795       0   5,537   8,400                   6,332   8,400
Arkansas                                      366       7                     366       7
Kansas                                      1,014     354                   1,014     354
Louisiana                                   1,235     292                   1,235     292
Nebraska\a                                  2,922   7,747                   2,922   7,747
Oklahoma                      795       0       1       0                     796       0
=========================================================================================
Central Midwest            38,875       9  29,079  112,65                  67,954  112,66
                                                        8                               7
Illinois\a                 35,995       8  28,952  112,65                  64,947  112,66
                                                        4                               2
Kentucky                    2,880       1     126       4                   3,006       5
=========================================================================================
Midwest                    144,58       2   6,024   1,543                  150,60   1,545
                                2                                               5
Indiana                                        74      45                      74      45
Iowa                                        1,036     267                   1,036     267
Minnesota                                   1,317     314                   1,317     314
Missouri                   15,629       0     499     811                  16,128     812
Ohio                       128,95       2   1,554      98                  130,50     100
                                3                                               7
Wisconsin                                   1,544       8                   1,544       8
=========================================================================================
Northwest                                      16     725  142,56     692  142,58   1,417
                                                                9               6
Alaska
Hawaii                                         11     645   1,798      48   1,809     692
Idaho                                           2      22       4       0       6      22
Montana                                                         9       0       9       0
Oregon                                          1      57  92,742     495  92,743     551
Utah                                                       17,204       2  17,204       2
Washington\a                                    2       2  30,808     148  30,810     150
Wyoming                                                         4       0       4       0
=========================================================================================
Rocky Mountain                                  3      23   2,199     964   2,202     987
Colorado                                        2      11   1,747     964   1,749     975
Nevada                                                         56       0      56       0
New Mexico                                      1      12     395       0     396      12
=========================================================================================
Northeast                   5,173       0  12,034  21,406                  17,206  21,406
Connecticut\a               5,173       0   3,480     223                   8,653     223
New Jersey\a                                8,553  21,183                   8,553  21,183
=========================================================================================
Southeast                  451,99      40  73,202  27,506                  525,19  27,546
                                3                                               6
Alabama                       558       0   6,994   3,583                   7,552   3,583
Florida                    14,889       5  24,642   2,084                  39,531   2,089
Georgia                                     9,916   1,233                   9,916   1,233
Mississippi                                   777  17,376                     777  17,376
North Carolina\a            7,390       4                                   7,390       4
Tennessee                  413,03      28  22,242     695                  435,27     723
                                4                                               1
Virginia                   16,122       2   8,631   2,536                  24,753   2,538
=========================================================================================
Southwestern                8,826       0   7,313     837                  16,139     838
Arizona                                     3,886     246                   3,886     246
California\a                8,826       0   3,376     570                  12,202     571
North Dakota                                   49       2                      49       2
South Dakota                                    2      19                       2      19
=========================================================================================
Texas                      10,583       8   6,636   2,946                  17,218   2,954
Maine                                       4,125   1,067                   4,125   1,067
Texas\a                    10,583       8   2,485   1,880                  13,067   1,887
Vermont                                        26       0                      26       0
=========================================================================================
Unaffiliated               386,47      68  36,608  112,47                  423,08  112,54
                                6                       4                       4       2
District of Columbia                          245      26                     245      26
Massachusetts              152,10      25   3,545  18,974                  155,65  18,998
                                9                                               4
Michigan                   71,495       0  10,206  37,423                  81,701  37,424
New Hampshire                                 262      86                     262      86
New York                    2,313       0  11,521  54,757                  13,834  54,757
Puerto Rico                                    11       0                      11       0
Rhode Island                                   53      22                      53      22
South Carolina              3,371       2  10,765   1,187                  14,135   1,189
Unknown                    157,18      40                                  157,18      40
                                8                                               8
=========================================================================================
Total                      1,079,     127  194,51  332,77  144,76   1,656  1,419,  334,56
                              750               6       9       8             034       3
Percent                        76       0      14      99      10       0     100     100
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Host state for compact. 

Source:  DOE's National low-level radioactive waste manifest
information management system and Envirocare data from monthly
reports submitted to the Northwest compact. 

      BARNWELL FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

Since the Barnwell disposal facility began operating in 1971 near
DOE's Savannah River site, more than 25 million cubic feet of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes containing nearly
8 million curies of radioactivity have been disposed of at the
facility.  One of the original six low-level waste disposal
facilities developed in the 1960s and 1970s, the facility is
authorized to dispose of all class A, B, and C low-level radioactive
wastes.  The facility is not, however, authorized to dispose of mixed
low-level wastes.  In addition, the facility is authorized by the
state of South Carolina to dispose of naturally occurring and
accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) from throughout the
nation. 

The Barnwell facility is currently the only disposal facility
available to waste generators in 40 states that generate class B and
C low-level radioactive wastes or that generate class A wastes that
do not meet license criteria for disposal at the Envirocare facility. 
These 40 states include the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico but
do not include North Carolina, the eight-state Northwest compact, and
the three-state Rocky Mountain compact. 

In 1998, about 99 percent of the curies of radioactivity disposed of
in commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes were disposed
of at the Barnwell facility.  Also, about 60 percent of the low-level
radioactive wastes disposed of at the Barnwell facility from 1986
through 1998 were from utilities that operate nuclear power plants. 
At present, 98 of the 104 nuclear power plants in the country that
are licensed to operate are located in the 40 states that only have
access to the Barnwell facility for disposal of their class B and
class C wastes.  (Five of the remaining six plants are located in
North Carolina and the other plant is in Washington State.) In
addition, 17 nuclear power plants that have been permanently shut
down and are either being decommissioned or are in safe storage prior
to being decommissioned only have access to the Barnwell facility to
dispose of their low-level radioactive wastes that do not meet
license criteria for disposal at the Envirocare facility. 

Until 1999, Chem-Nuclear Services, LLC, which operates the Barnwell
facility, estimated that the 34 acres of unused land at the facility
had an available disposal capacity of over 6 million cubic feet of
waste.  At current disposal levels, the company estimated, the
facility could operate for up to another 25 years.  In 1999, however,
South Carolina's Department Health and Environment reevaluated the
unused portion of the facility and determined that slightly over half
of the unused land is not suitable for disposal because of shallow
groundwater levels and other geohydrological conditions.  This
reevaluation reduced the estimated disposal capacity for the facility
from over 6 million to about 3.2 million cubic feet.  According to
the department, this capacity would permit the continued use of the
facility for about 10 years.  Chem-Nuclear Services, LLC, concurs
with the department's analysis. 

      RICHLAND FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

Located within DOE's Hanford site near Richland, Washington, the
Richland facility, like the Barnwell facility, was one of the
original six disposal facilities for commercially generated low-level
radioactive wastes.  Since the facility began operating in 1965, more
than 13 million cubic feet of commercially generated low-level
radioactive wastes, containing about 3 million curies of
radioactivity, has been disposed of at the facility.  The Richland
facility has a remaining capacity of about 44 million cubic feet of
low-level radioactive wastes. 

The Richland facility provided disposal services for low-level
radioactive waste generators throughout the nation until 1993, when
it became the regional facility for the eight-state Northwest
compact.  In addition, a contract between the Northwest and the Rocky
Mountain compacts permits commercial waste generators in the three
states comprising the latter compact to dispose of their low-level
radioactive wastes at the Richland facility.  In addition, the
facility is authorized to receive and dispose of NARM from throughout
the nation.  The facility is not licensed to dispose of mixed
low-level radioactive wastes.  The region covered by the two compacts
contains one operating commercial nuclear power plant and one retired
plant that is now being dismantled. 

      ENVIROCARE FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Envirocare of Utah, Inc., located west of Salt Lake City within a
100-square-mile hazardous waste zone in Tooele County, has been
operating as a disposal facility for various types of radioactive
wastes since 1988.  More than 10 million cubic feet of commercially
generated low-level radioactive wastes, containing 416 curies of
radioactivity, was disposed of at this facility from 1991 through
1998.  The facility is authorized to dispose of certain class A
low-level radioactive wastes and mixed low-level radioactive wastes
under specified restrictions contained in the state's license for the
facility.  The license restrictions include limits on radionuclides,
concentrations, and specifications on the physical and chemical
properties of the wastes.  The Envirocare facility is designed to
treat and dispose of about 430 million cubic feet of wastes,
including about 247 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive
wastes from commercial and DOE sources.  In addition, the Envirocare
site has the capacity to dispose of about 26.5 million cubic feet of
mixed low-level radioactive wastes.  From 10 to 15 percent of the
total disposal capacity for low-level radioactive and mixed low-level
wastes has been used. 

The state of Utah initially licensed the Envirocare facility in 1988
as a facility for naturally occurring radioactive wastes.  In March
1991, under its NRC-agreement state authority, the state amended the
license to permit the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. 
Also, NRC has licensed the Envirocare facility to dispose of uranium
and thorium mill tailings.  In addition to commercial waste
generators, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DOE, and the
Department of Defense have shipped wastes to Envirocare for treatment
and disposal. 

Beginning in 1993, the Northwest compact established a policy
restricting the importation of low-level radioactive wastes into the
compact region for disposal (except for the contract permitting the
disposal of wastes generated in the Rocky Mountain compact).  In
1995, Envirocare announced plans to expand its acceptance of some
kinds of low-level radioactive wastes to waste generators in all
states outside of the Northwest compact region.  To do this,
Envirocare sought and received an exception to the Northwest
compact's restrictive policy.  The exception exempted large volume,
very low concentration low-level radioactive wastes from cleanup
operations from the restriction.  The exception to the general
policy of the Northwest compact was intended to provide for certain
types of low-level radioactive wastes that are generated during the
dismantling of nuclear facilities and/or the cleanup of contaminated
sites of these facilities. 

In January 1996, Envirocare applied for a renewal of its license for
the disposal facility.  The state of Utah issued the renewed license
in October 1998.  Also, in November 1998, the Northwest compact
removed the restriction that only large volumes of cleanup wastes
could be disposed of at the Envirocare facility by authorizing
Envirocare to accept waste shipments of less than 1,000 cubic feet
from any one shipper.  This change was made, according to officials
of the state and the compact, so as not to penalize small waste
generators that had limited space to store accumulating wastes. 

The Envirocare facility is not licensed to accept any class B and
class C low-level wastes.  The facility may dispose of only class A
wastes that contain permissible concentrations of radionuclides
specifically identified in the facility's license.  According to
officials of Envirocare, because their operation does not include the
use of remote handling equipment for waste containers, they have
chosen not to try to expand their operation to include other classes
of low-level radioactive wastes.  Before the company could begin to
dispose of additional class A wastes or any class B or C wastes,
these officials stated, they would have to address any concerns of
the Northwest compact, the state of Utah, and Tooele County.  Also,
according to officials of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality,
state law requires the approval of the state's governor and
legislature to expand the types of wastes that the facility could
accept for disposal.  In addition, the disposal of class B and/or C
wastes at the Envirocare facility would require a fundamental change
in the way the facility is operated.  As discussed earlier, the
disposal of class B and C wastes requires more stable waste forms and
tougher packaging requirements.  Also, the disposal of class C wastes
requires that measures be taken at the disposal facility to protect
against inadvertent human intrusion.  Meeting these requirements
would not be possible at the Envirocare facility under the existing
operating methods.  Much of the wastes disposed of at the Envirocare
facility are contaminated soil or soil-like materials.  Other types
of waste materials are dumped from their shipping containers and
mixed with dirt before being spread out in layers in the disposal
area.  Because of the more stringent packaging and structural
requirements for class B and class C wastes and the related worker
exposure issues that would be involved, the disposal approach
employed at the Envirocare facility precludes the disposal of class B
and class C wastes as well as some radionuclides and/or
concentrations of radionuclides that are classified as class A
low-level radioactive wastes. 

   SOME WASTES DO NOT HAVE ACCESS
   TO DISPOSAL FACILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

Although most waste generators currently have access to one or more
disposal facilities for low-level radioactive wastes, there are three
basic exceptions.  The exceptions are (1) mixed low-level wastes that
do not meet the license criteria for disposal at the Envirocare of
Utah facility, (2) wastes generated in North Carolina that do not
meet Envirocare's disposal criteria, and (3) greater-than-class-C
wastes for which disposal is DOE's responsibility. 

      MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1

The Envirocare facility is the only existing disposal facility that
is authorized to dispose of mixed low-level wastes.  The facility is
authorized to accept both low-level radioactive wastes and mixed
low-level wastes from waste generators in all states outside of the
Northwest compact.  However, the state of Utah's license for this
facility specifies the average concentration of each radionuclide
authorized for disposal and limitations on the hazardous
constituent(s) of the mixed low-level wastes.  Collectively, the
radionuclides and concentration limits make up a large, but
incomplete, subset of what NRC defines as class A wastes.  Thus, any
mixed low-level wastes that contain radionuclides and/or hazardous
constituents that either are not listed on the facility's license or
exceed limits specified in the license may not be disposed of at the
facility. 

Neither DOE nor NRC routinely compiles information on the amounts of
mixed low-level wastes generated in the United States each year. 
Moreover, we were unable to identify any other source of
comprehensive information on the types and quantities of mixed wastes
that are currently being generated and stored by commercial users of
radioactive materials.  However, at least one
stateIllinois--surveyed its licensees in 1997 and found that about
2,300 cubic feet of mixed low-level wastes was being stored at waste
generators' sites in that state.  Also in 1997, a working group of
the Low-Level Waste Forum representing seven states surveyed
generators of mixed low-level wastes within their states.  Although
the working group found it difficult to calculate the volume of mixed
low-level wastes that was in storage, consultation with processors of
mixed low-level wastes indicated that waste generators' reports of
untreatable mixed wastes were generally accurate. 

In commenting on our report, NRC stated that in 1992, the Commission
and EPA published a report compiling a national profile on the
volumes, characteristics, and ability to treat commercially generated
mixed low-level wastes for 1990.\6

NRC added that other reports were subsequently issued by others,
including DOE.\7 Generally, according to NRC, these reports have
found that the amount of mixed wastes generated each year is
relatively small and that most of it can be treated to remove its
hazardous constituents or characteristics. 

--------------------
\6 National Profile on Commercially Generated Low-Level Radioactive
Mixed Waste (NUREG/CR-5938). 

\7 Mixed Waste Management Options:  1995 Update (DOE/LLW-219). 

      MOST WASTE GENERATED IN
      NORTH CAROLINA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2

Waste generators in North Carolina currently have access only to the
Envirocare facility for disposing of slightly contaminated class A
wastes that meet that facility's license criteria.  When South
Carolina withdrew from the Southeast compact in 1995, its withdrawal
legislation denied waste generators in North Carolina access to the
Barnwell facility because the state of North Carolina was allegedly
not making sufficient progress toward developing a new disposal
facility.  That state had been selected by the Southeast Compact
Commission as the host state for the compact's nextafter the
Barnwell facilitydisposal facility.  According to the Executive
Director of the Southeast Compact Commission, South Carolina's action
to deny North Carolina waste generators access to the Barnwell
facility violates the commerce clause of the U.S.  Constitution as an
unwarranted state restraint on interstate commerce.  However, she
added, the denial has not been challenged in the courts.  The reason
may be related to the fact that the largest waste generators in North
Carolina--Carolina Power and Light, Duke Power, and General
Electric--own and operate nuclear facilities in both states. 

An official in South Carolina's Department of Health and
Environmental Protection agreed that denying waste generators in
North Carolina access to the Barnwell facility probably violates the
Constitution's commerce clause.  He pointed out that the basic
purpose of the compact legislation was to provide states with
incentives to form compacts and develop new disposal capacity by,
among other things, granting compacts relief from the constitutional
prohibition on restraining interstate commerce. 

According to North Carolina's Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, at the beginning of 1998, generators of low-level
radioactive wastes located in the state were storing over 57,000
cubic feet of wastes containing over 500 curies of radioactivity. 
Also, according to the department, there are waste generators within
the state that are maintaining their existing licenses to use
radioactive materials solely to enable them to store their low-level
radioactive wastes.  About 11,700 cubic feet of these wastes was,
according to the department, being stored while the radioactivity in
the wastes decayed.  These wastes, which usually have a half-life of
less than 110 days, can be disposed of as nonradioactive wastes after
a sufficient period of decay. 

      WASTES THAT DOE IS
      RESPONSIBLE FOR DISPOSING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.3

DOE is responsible for disposing of commercially generated wastes
that are classified, under NRC's regulations on low-level radioactive
wastes, as greater-than-class-C wastes.  NRC requires that
greater-than-class-C low-level radioactive wastes be disposed of in a
geologic repository unless a proposal for disposing of these wastes
in a facility licensed under NRC's regulations for low-level
radioactive waste disposal facilities has been approved by NRC's
Commissioners.  According to DOE, a disposal facility for this type
of low-level radioactive waste may not be available for 20 years or
more. 

Greater-than-class-C wastes consist of materials and equipment such
as control rods from nuclear power plants, hardware used to
disassemble bundles of spent (used) nuclear fuel, and sealed
radioactive sources that are used in medical and industrial
applications.  The largest volume of this class of commercially
generated waste is produced by the operation and the decommissioning
of nuclear power plants.  In 1996, DOE estimated that over 7,000
cubic feet of this type of wastecontaining over 4 million curies of
radioactivity--is being stored and the amount of greater-than-class-C
wastes generated through 2035, when the current licenses for
operating nuclear power plants will have expired, will amount to
about 86,000 cubic feet of wastes containing about 37 million curies
of radioactivity.  This projected volume is small when compared to
the quantities of class A, B, and C low-level radioactive wastes
disposed of each year. 

DOE is addressingthrough an environmental impact statement--the
environmental effects of disposing of greater-than-class-C waste in a
potential geologic repository for spent fuel and high-level
radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  This environmental
impact statement will primarily address the effects of disposing of
70,000 metric tons of spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes
owned and/or generated by both electric utilities and the federal
government.\8 Secondarily, DOE is analyzing the effects of also
disposing of (1) the total projected amount--almost 120,000 metric
tons--of spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes from both
commercial generators and DOE and (2) the projected inventory of
commercially generated greater-than-class-C wastes and similar wastes
generated by DOE.  In August 1999, DOE released a draft of its
environmental impact statement for public comment.  Among other
things, DOE concluded that there would be little additional impact on
the environment from disposing of greater-than-class-C waste and
DOE's similar wastes at Yucca Mountain.  DOE did not state in this
environmental statement, however, that it would dispose of these
wastes at a repository at Yucca Mountain.  In this regard, DOE noted
that disposing of these wastes at Yucca Mountain could require either
legislative action or a decision by NRC to reclassify these wastes as
high-level radioactive wastes. 

--------------------
\8 The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, limits the
amount of wastes that DOE could dispose of in the repository, if
developed, to 70,000 metric tons. 

FUTURE ACCESS CONCERNS RAISE
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE
APPROACH FOR MANAGING WASTES
============================================================ Chapter 4

States and compacts are not actively developing new disposal capacity
for commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes in part
because waste generators in all states except North Carolina have
access to the Barnwell disposal facility.  That facility, however,
may reach its disposal capacity in about 10 yearsjust when a
significant number of nuclear power plants may be retired and
decommissioned, generating additional wastes.  Moreover, access to
the Barnwell facility could be curtailed as early as 2000 by the
government of South Carolina or Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC, could
decide to close the facility on economic grounds.  Also, recent
initiatives by private companies to license and develop new waste
disposal facilities have not been successful.  Thus, within 10 years,
waste generators in the 41 states that do not have access to the
Richland disposal facility may once again be without access to
disposal capacity for much of their low-level radioactive wastes. 

The conditions discussed above raise the following question:  What,
if anything, could be done to ensure that adequate, reliable disposal
capacity remains available to meet commercial needs for the
foreseeable future? Among the alternatives available for
consideration are (1) retaining the current compact approach, (2)
repealing the compact act in favor of a free-market approach to waste
disposal services, or (3) designating one or more of DOE's disposal
facilities for the disposal of commercially generated waste. 

   CONTINUED ACCESS TO THE
   BARNWELL FACILITY IS NOT
   ASSURED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Although generators of low-level radioactive wastes in all states
except North Carolina currently have access to the Barnwell disposal
facility, that facility may run out of available disposal capacity
around 2010.  As noted earlier, the operating licenses for 51 nuclear
power plants will expire from 2011 through 2020 (unless extended by
NRC), and the operators of 49 of these plants currently rely on the
Barnwell facility for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes.\1
Moreover, waste generators in at least 44 states could lose their
access to the Barnwell facility earlier than 2010 if South Carolina
takes action to join an existing compact or to close its border to
wastes outside of the state, as it is considering, or if Chem-Nuclear
Systems closes the facility as an unprofitable operation. 

--------------------
\1 The other two plants are located in North Carolina. 

      SOUTH CAROLINA CONSIDERS
      REJOINING COMPACT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.1

South Carolina is considering whether to join an existing compact or
take other steps to restrict access to the Barnwell facility.  If
South Carolina joins a compact, waste generators in states outside
that compact could lose access to the Barnwell facility. 

The Governor of South Carolina stated, in his January 20, 1999,
State of the State address, that the state's withdrawal from the
Southeast compact had been a mistake and that the state needed to
explore the possibility of rejoining the compact.  He added, however,
that he would insist on two conditions for reentering the compact. 
First, an agreement would have to be made on a specific date after
which South Carolina would no longer be the national and regional
landfill for nuclear wastes.  Second, the compact would have to be
prepared to insist that North Carolina (the designated host state for
a new compact disposal facility) meet its obligations to the compact. 
Then, in June 1999, the governor created a task force to examine the
Barnwell issue.  The governor's stated goal is to get the state to
stop taking radioactive wastes from around the country by some means
such as limiting access to the Barnwell facility to waste generators
within South Carolina, rejoining the Southeast compact, or joining
another compact. 

In January of this year, South Carolina's legislature began
considering legislation that would, if implemented, enable the state
to reenter the Southeast compact and restrict access to the Barnwell
facility to waste generators within the compact region.  The
consideration of this proposed legislation has been suspended until
the legislature reconvenes in January 2000.  If South Carolina
eventually rejoins the compact and restricts access to the Barnwell
facility, then waste generators in the 33 states (including the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) outside of the Southeast,
Northwest, and Rocky Mountain compacts would have access only to the
Envirocare facility.  In 1998, these 33 states disposed of over
110,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes at the Barnwell
facility. 

      THE BARNWELL FACILITY MIGHT
      BE UNECONOMICAL TO OPERATE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1.2

In addition to the potential effect of direct state action that could
affect the accessibility of the Barnwell facility to waste generators
in most states, the facility operator is concerned that existing
state taxes on the operation of the facility could make the
facility's continued operation uneconomical. 

When South Carolina reopened access to the Barnwell disposal facility
in 1995 to all states except North Carolina, it imposed a state tax
of $235 per cubic foot on all wastes disposed of at the facility. 
Tax proceeds were earmarked for higher education grants (28.5
percent), other education assistance (66.5 percent), and Barnwell
County (5 percent).  The addition of this tax has contributed to
general efforts by utilities and other users of nuclear materials to
reduce their disposal costs by reducing the volume of low-level
radioactive wastes that they generate and dispose of at the Barnwell
facility.  As a result of the nuclear industry's volume-reduction
initiatives, the volume of wastes disposed of at the Barnwell
facility has continued to decline, resulting in less tax revenue than
the state had expected. 

Subsequently, South Carolina amended the method for computing the
disposal tax by, in effect, requiring Chem-Nuclear Systems to deposit
at least $24 million annually into the state's higher education fund
regardless of the number of cubic feet of wastes disposed of at the
Barnwell facility.  To collect sufficient taxes on disposal services
to cover the minimum contribution to the higher education fund in the
state's fiscal year (July 1 through June 30), Chem-Nuclear Systems
would have to dispose of about 360,000 cubic feet of waste. 
Chem-Nuclear Systems had estimated, however, that it would sell only
about 160,000 cubic feet of disposal services in South Carolina's
fiscal year ending on June 30, 1999.  This amount of disposal
service, the company estimated, would leave a shortfall in the
minimum tax for the higher education fund amounting to about $13.3
million.  In the short term, therefore, Chem-Nuclear Systems had to
use its own funds to make up this shortfall. 

Officials of Chem-Nuclear Systems have indicated that if they are
unable to raise sufficient funds in the future to pay the state's
license and disposal services tax on the operation of the Barnwell
facility, then the company will have to either increase disposal fees
or, perhaps, close the facility. 

   COMPANIES' EFFORTS TO DEVELOP
   NEW DISPOSAL FACILITIES HAVE
   NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

During the 1990s, several companies have shown interest in obtaining
licenses for and developing new disposal facilities for radioactive
wastes generated by DOE.  But these initiatives have thus far not
been successful.  Had they succeeded, they would have resulted in
new, licensed and regulated disposal capacity that, if future
conditions warranted, could have served the disposal needs of
commercial generators of low-level radioactive wastes. 

In March 1999, DOE estimated that it may generate and dispose of over
300 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes (including
mixed low-level wastes) over about the next 70 years as it cleans up
its complex of nuclear facilities.  Although DOE would dispose of
most of these wastes at its own disposal facilities, it estimated
that 20 million to 40 million cubic feet of the wastes could be
disposed of in commercial facilities.  Because of the potential
market for disposing of DOE's radioactive and hazardous wastes,
including low-level radioactive wastes, commercial waste management
companies have expressed an interest in developing treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities to serve DOE's needs.  However,
DOE's policy is that a commercially owned and operated disposal
facility must be licensed and regulated by either NRC or an agreement
state\2 before DOE will consider disposing of its radioactive wastes
at the company's facility.  At present, Envirocare of Utah is
essentially the only private company that operates a licensed
facility that DOE can use to dispose of qualifying low-level
radioactive wastes, mixed low-level wastes, and wastes from uranium
and/or thorium mills.\3 Since 1992, DOE has disposed of over 3
million cubic feet of low-level radioactive wastes and over 1.1
million cubic feet of mixed low-level wastes at the Envirocare
facility.  DOE intends, however, to promote competition for its
disposal services within the private sector by, among other things,
offering incentive payments or minimum volume guarantees for new
facilities that obtain NRC or state licenses within a short period of
time. 

Waste Control Specialists, Inc., is one private company that wanted
to obtain a license from the state of Texas (Texas is an agreement
state under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended) to permit the company
to compete for DOE contracts for treating, storing, and disposing of
DOE's wastes, including low-level radioactive wastes and mixed
low-level wastes.  The company operates a hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facility on a 16,000-acre site located
northwest of the Midland-Odessa area in Andrews County, Texas.  (Most
of the site is in Texas, but a part of it is in New Mexico.) Waste
Control Specialists is also authorized to treat and store, but not
dispose of, mixed wastes at the facility.  Under Texas law, only the
state's radioactive waste authority may obtain a license for a
disposal facility for commercially generated low-level radioactive
wastes.  Waste Control Specialists sought state legislation that
would have permitted the company to seek a state license to (1)
construct and operate a disposal facility for low-level wastes
generated in the three-state Texas compact and (2) dispose of wastes
generated by DOE, including low-level radioactive wastes and mixed
low-level wastes.  According to company officials, the company's
primary interest was in meeting the conditions that are necessary for
it to compete for DOE's waste management contracts.  Without
authority to compete for DOE's business, according to these
officials, the company was not interested in becoming the host
facility for waste generators in the Texas compact. 

A second company--Envirocare of Texas--also wants to establish a
treatment and storage facility for hazardous and radioactive wastes
in Andrews County, Texas, and, depending on studies of a site it
purchased, a disposal facility that could serve both commercial waste
generators and DOE.  Unlike Waste Control Specialists, Envirocare
does not have a developed waste management facility at its site in
Andrews County.  Officials of Envirocare publicly stated that the
company would be willing to serve as the host for the Texas compact
or in any other way that will meet the needs of the state and waste
generators. 

Neither of the initiatives in Texas was successful because in May
1999, the state did not enact proposed legislation that would have
authorized private companies to seek a state license.  The siting
authority in Texas was abolished by legislation that did pass, and
the authority's functions were transferred to the state's licensing
agency. 

Safety Kleen was interested in disposing of DOE's radioactive wastes
at the site of a hazardous waste facility that it operates in eastern
Colorado.  The company wanted to obtain a license from the state to
treat, store, and dispose of certain low-level radioactive wastes and
mixed low-level wastes generated by DOE at its Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site near Denver.  However, in May 1999,
Safety Kleen announced that it would not pursue this initiative
because of local opposition as well as opposition from the Governor
of Colorado.  This proposal, had it succeeded, would not have had an
immediate direct effect on commercial waste generators' access to
disposal facilities for low-level radioactive wastes and mixed
low-level wastes.  It could, however, have resulted in a new,
state-regulated disposal facility for low-level radioactive and mixed
low-level wastes that could, under the right circumstances, have been
made available to commercial waste generators. 

Also, on April 24, 1997, Safety Kleen announced its intent to seek a
license to dispose of low-activity, low-level radioactive wastes and
naturally occurring radioactive material, including wastes from
commercial generators, at its Grassy Mountain facility in Tooele
County, Utah.  The facility is currently permitted to accept
industrial and hazardous wastes and polychlorinated biphenyls,
referred to as PCBs.  If successful, the company would dispose of
NORM and low-level radioactive wastes with limited concentrations of
specific radionuclides at the facility in a synthetically lined
trench initially planned for hazardous wastes.  Safety Kleen
submitted a siting plan application to the state of Utah and applied
for local planning and zoning authorization.  In December 1998, the
Tooele County Planning Commission rejected Safety Kleen's application
for local planning and zoning authorization.  The company has
appealed the decision to the County Commission.  Under Utah law, the
approval of the proposed facility by the governor and state
legislature would also be required. 

--------------------
\2 An agreement state is a state that has entered into a formal
agreement with NRC providing for the transfer from NRC to the state
of the authority to regulate the commercial possession, use, and
disposal of radioactive materials. 

\3 DOE has access to the Barnwell facility but seldom uses it because
of the high disposal charges at the facility. 

   ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO
   MANAGING LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE
   WASTES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

The lack of new disposal facilities, the declining volume of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes disposed of each
year, and the possible loss of access to the Barnwell facility raise
questions about whether a new approach to the waste disposal issue is
needed.  Although siting agencies in several states have shown an
interest in storing low-level radioactive wastes for 100 or more
years as an alternative to the permanent disposal of these wastes in
the near future, such an approach postpones, but does not replace,
the need for disposal.  States, compacts, and industry groups have
discussed several alternatives to alleviate the current conditions. 
Among the disposal alternatives available to the Congress are (1)
retaining the compact approach, (2) repealing the compact act to
remove the compacts' authority to impose restrictions on the import
and export of low-level radioactive wastes, or (3) making DOE
responsible for disposing of both its own and commercially generated
low-level radioactive wastes.  Many factors have contributed to this
lack of success, but the key factor appears to be the willingnessor
unwillingness--of states to vigorously pursue their development
programs.  To be successful, any one of these approaches would have
to address the willingness of any state or states to serve as host
for a disposal facility. 

      RETAIN THE COMPACT APPROACH
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.1

One course of action is to leave the existing compact legislation in
place and let the compacts and states address issues such as
declining volume and the potential lack of access to current disposal
facilities. 

Compact advocates emphasize the degree of control that states
exercise over low-level radioactive waste issues and the flexibility
that the compact legislation provides for responding to changing
circumstances.  For example, compacts are free to regulate the import
and/or export of low-level radioactive wastes within their region for
treatment, storage, or disposal and to realign themselves as
circumstances, such as the declining volume of wastes, may warrant. 
The Northwest compact illustrates these features of compacts.  The
Northwest compact entered into a contract with the Rocky Mountain
compact to dispose of low-level radioactive wastes generated in the
latter region at the Richland facility.  The Northwest compact also
acquiesced in the development and operation of the Envirocare of Utah
disposal facility.  The compact recognized that the Envirocare
facility had the support of the state of Utaha member of the
compactand that the facility fulfilled a need for disposal services
for high-volume, low-activity radioactive wastes.  Thus, supporters
of this approach point out, the compact system does not preclude
private development of new disposal facilities. 

As discussed earlier, however, after collectively spending about $600
million, not one of the compacts has successfully developed a new
disposal facility for low-level radioactive wastes.  This history,
coupled with the declining volume of wastes, raises questions about
whether compacts could economically provide new disposal facilities
in the absence of some merging and/or realignment of compacts. 
Others, on the other hand, point out that pending legal action
against designated host states, such as Nebraska, that have not
developed new disposal facilities, may prove, in the long run, the
best means to ensure that these states discharge their
responsibilities under the compact acts. 

      REPEAL THE COMPACT
      LEGISLATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.2

Because none of the compacts have developed, or are attempting to
develop, new disposal facilities, some argue for repealing the
compact acts so that private industry could more readily develop and
operate disposal facilities in response to market conditions.  This
approach would remove some of the direct control that the compact
approach provides states over the process of developing and operating
disposal facilities for low-level radioactive wastes.  Successfully
implementing this approach, however, would still depend, to a large
extent, on the willingness of prospective host states to accept these
facilities. 

Proponents of a market-driven approach point out that 10 regional
compacts are too many to address the amount of commercially generated
low-level radioactive wastes that is now being disposed of. 
Abolishing the compacts would result in a single national market open
to commercial disposal firms.  Moreover, the market for disposal
services would be larger when considering DOE's estimated need for
commercial disposal services.  In this regard, the recent initiatives
by Waste Control Specialists, Envirocare, and Safety Kleen in
developing licensed facilities for disposing of low-level radioactive
wastes demonstrate commercial interest in the combined commercial and
DOE markets for disposal services. 

This approach, however, appears to risk the early loss of existing
disposal capacity before replacement disposal capacity comes on line. 
For example, the state of Washington supports the compact approach
and has stated that it probably would close the Richland facility if
it lost the right to exclude out-of-region wastes provided by the
compact legislation.  At a minimum, the state could decline to renew
US Ecology's lease on the Richland disposal site when the lease
expires in mid-2005.  Also, South Carolina, which now wants to
exercise greater control over the Barnwell facility's disposal
operations, could take similar action regarding that facility. 

Finally, if states' roles in developing new disposal facilities are
limited to licensing and regulating new facilities proposed by
private companies, states dissatisfied with this more limited role
might erect administrative barriers to new disposal facilities within
their borders.  This phenomenon is illustrated in the recent
experiences in Colorado, Texas, and Utah, in which commercial waste
management companies were unsuccessful in obtaining political and/or
regulatory approvals from state and/or local governments for their
proposed new disposal facilities. 

      MAKE DOE RESPONSIBLE FOR
      DISPOSING OF COMMERCIAL
      WASTE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.3

Another alternative approach to disposing of commercially generated
low-level radioactive waste is directing DOE to dispose of
commercially generated wastes.  This approach is supported by those
who believe that state governments would successfully frustrate
attempts to develop new disposal facilities under the compact and
free market approaches discussed above.  They also point to the
relatively small volume that would be added to DOE's waste disposal
operations.  Over the 10-year period ending in 1998, for example, DOE
estimates that it disposed of over 2.3 million cubic feet of
low-level radioactive wastes per year at its six operating disposal
sites.  In contrast, a total of less than 350,000 cubic feet of
wastes was disposed of at the Barnwell and Richland facilities in
1998, and a little more than 1 million cubic feet of slightly
contaminated wastes was disposed of in that year at the Envirocare of
Utah facility. 

Two of DOE's six disposal facilities for low-level radioactive
wastesfacilities that are located on the Hanford site and the Nevada
Test Sitecurrently accept low-level radioactive wastes from other
DOE facilities.\4 Both facilities have large unused capacities.  At
Hanford, the existing disposal facility is expected to be capable of
disposing of about 71 million cubic feet of these wastes, or about
seven times the amount that DOE expects to dispose of at that
facility over approximately the next 70 years.  The disposal facility
on DOE's Nevada Test Site has over 100 million cubic feet of disposal
capacity, and DOE expects to use only about 17 million cubic feet of
this capacity for the disposal of its own low-level radioactive
wastes.  Both of these disposal facilities are also capable of
disposing of mixed low-level wastes.  Moreover, disposal capabilities
can be expanded at both locations.  It is clear, therefore, that
these two disposal facilities have the capacity to accept commercial
low-level radioactive wastes in addition to DOE's own wastes.  Also,
there is precedent for making DOE responsible for disposing of
commercial radioactive wastes.  For example, the 1985 compact act
made DOE responsible for disposing of greater-than-class-C low-level
radioactive wastes.  In addition, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, as amended in 1987, made DOE responsible for disposing of spent
fuel from commercial nuclear power plants in a geologic repository. 

There are, however, drawbacks associated with this approach.  In
particular, there does not appear to be any incentive for the most
likely affected statesNevada and Washingtonto accept this approach. 
These two states host DOE's Nevada Test Site and Hanford Site,
respectively, which contain the only two of DOE's six disposal
facilities that generally dispose of low-level radioactive wastes
generated at other DOE facilities.  The objections of the (then)
governors of these two states (and South Carolina) to bearing what
they viewed as an unfair burden for disposing of commercial low-level
radioactive wastes led to the compact acts.  At both sites, moreover,
DOE and the respective state governments are addressing numerous
issues pertaining to cleaning up the environmental legacy of the
nuclear weapons program.  For example, Nevada officials anticipate
that, as DOE continues to clean up these facilities, the Department
will rely more and more on the Nevada Test Site to dispose of various
radiological and hazardous wastes.  A major objective of Nevada's
cleanup negotiations with DOE, therefore, is to ensure that the
Department does not transport wastes through the greater Las Vegas
Valley en route to the Nevada Test Site. 

In general, these states have been opposed to the disposal of wastes
from other DOE nuclear facilities and can be expected to oppose the
disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes at
these sites.  Neither state, for example, has authorized DOE to
dispose of mixed low-level wastes generated outside of their
respective state at either the Nevada Test Site or the Hanford site. 
DOE appeared to have recognized the sensitivity of the issue of state
acceptance of the additional disposal of radioactive wastes when it
declined a request by an organization of users of radioactive
materials in California to dispose of their low-level radioactive
wastes at DOE's Nevada and Hanford facilities.  The users
organization had requested access to these disposal facilities on
behalf of California's generators of low-level radioactive wastes,
pending resolution of the state of California's request to purchase
the federally owned site in Ward Valley for use as a waste disposal
facility.  DOE denied the users organization's request on the basis
of equity considerations in Nevada and Washington. 

For at least 10 years, the state of Nevada has also vigorously
opposed the possible use of Yucca Mountain for a repository for spent
fuel and other highly radioactive wastes.  The 1987 amendments to the
nuclear waste act authorized the Secretary of Energy to enter into an
agreement with Nevada concerning a repository under which the state
could receive (1) an initial payment of $10 million upon the
execution of the agreement, (2) subsequent payments of $10 million
each year prior to DOE's first receipt of spent fuel at Yucca
Mountain, and (3) annual payments of $20 million thereafter until the
repository's closure.  In return, Nevada would, among other things,
be required to waive its right, under the 1982 waste act, to
disapprove of (subject to a congressional override) a formal
recommendation by the federal government that Yucca Mountain be
designated as a site for a geologic repository.  The state, however,
did not pursue such an agreement.  In fact, in 1989, the state
enacted legislation, subsequently overturned in federal court, making
it illegal to store high-level radioactive wastes in Nevada.  In that
same year, the Nevada legislature enacted, and the governor approved,
resolutions (1) opposing the placement of a high-level radioactive
waste repository anywhere in the state and (2) prohibiting the
establishment of a repository at Yucca Mountain. 

Moreover, having DOE dispose of commercially generated low-level
radioactive wastes could adversely affect the Department's
negotiations with states and other interested parties on acceptable
solutions to cleanup problems throughout DOE's complex of nuclear
facilities.  DOE has invested substantial time and resources in
negotiating acceptable arrangements for the management of its wastes
with the states that host DOE's nuclear facilities.  These efforts
have been in response to the requirements of the Federal Facility
Compliance Act and commitments made to governors, including
environmental impact analyses at each site.  Also included in these
efforts have been substantial negotiations with many publics ranging
from local citizen advisory boards to the National Governors'
Association.  Imposing the additional requirement that DOE dispose of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes at one or more of
these DOE facilities could negatively affect DOE's progress in
negotiating cleanup arrangements with states and other interested
parties. 

Assigning DOE the responsibility for disposing of commercially
generated low-level radioactive wastes would impose an additional
burden on a federal Department that has often been criticized by
states and other interested parties for what they have characterized
as its poor performance in cleaning up its complex of nuclear
facilities.  And finally, DOE self-regulates its own disposal
operations, whereas either NRC or an agreement state regulates the
disposal of commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes. 
Resolving questions about the responsibility for the regulation of
waste disposal operations would, therefore, be essential to any
effort to assign DOE the responsibility for disposing of commercially
generated wastes. 

--------------------
\4 DOE's Savannah River site accepts low-level radioactive wastes
from the Navy's nuclear operations. 

STATE COMPACTS' AND UNAFFILIATED
STATES' EXPERIENCES UNDER THE
COMPACT ACTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

   APPALACHIAN COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The Appalachian States Low-Level Waste Compact Act of 1985 permitted
Pennsylvania to establish a regional low-level radioactive waste
disposal site for the Appalachian compact states of Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.  Pennsylvania was selected
as the host state because it generates the largest amount of wastes
within the compact.  In 1990, Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC signed an
agreement, called the Main Agreement, with the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection to site, design, construct,
operate, close, and decommission a regional low-level waste disposal
facility for the compact.  In March 1996, Pennsylvania began a
voluntary siting process.  The volunteer process empowered
municipalities in Pennsylvania to make their own choices about
hosting a facility.  From March 1996 through April 1998, staff of the
contractor that the state selected traveled more than 90,000 miles
statewide and participated in more than 340 outreach meetings.  Yet,
no municipality expressed interest in hosting a low-level waste
disposal facility.  On December 31, 1998, Pennsylvania's Department
of Environmental Protection suspended the low-level radioactive waste
disposal facility-siting project.\1

According to the department, two factors that drove the need for a
low-level waste disposal facility had changed dramatically.  First,
as of the end of 1998, it appeared that existing disposal capacity at
the Barnwell and Envirocare disposal facilities could be available to
low-level waste generators in Pennsylvania for at least 25 years.  In
addition, volumes of low-level radioactive wastes generated in
Pennsylvania have decreased from more than 225,000 cubic feet in 1991
to less than 30,000 cubic feet in 1997.  According to the department,
the Main Agreement between Chem-Nuclear Systems and the state will be
amended so that the project can be resumed, if needed.  Additionally,
the Appalachian compact commission approved a $200,000 restart fund
for the commission in the event that the siting process begins again. 

--------------------
\1 The Department of Environmental Protection suspended the project
after discussing the issue with the Low-Level Waste Advisory
Committee and the Appalachian compact commission. 

   CENTRAL INTERSTATE COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

In 1982, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Nebraska formed
the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission to
provide for low-level radioactive waste disposal within their
borders.  In 1987, the Commission chose Nebraska as its host state
and US Ecology as the developer of the compact's low-level
radioactive waste disposal facility.  Nebraska's governor at that
time expressed reservations about the state's role but committed the
state to honoring its commitment under the compact agreement.  US
Ecology submitted a license application to Nebraska in 1990.  Since
then, efforts to license a site in Nebraska have been challenged and
delayed. 

From 1993 through 1998, Nebraska, or a closely related political
subdivision, brought five lawsuits against the Commission or US
Ecology.  Nebraska lost all five cases, whereby the courts found
that, in general, all the suits lacked merit.  In one case, for
example, the court concluded that Governor Nelson, the State of
Nebraska and Plaintiffs in this case were closely related,' that
there appeared to be a coordinated litigation strategy,' and the
State of Nebraska and its constituent political bodies.  .  .are not
entitled to wage what might be characterized as hit-and-run guerilla
warfare by filing multiple lawsuits on the same claim in order to
frustrate performance of the Compact.\2

In January 1993, Nebraska's regulatory agency announced its intent to
deny a license for the proposed disposal facility because the site
contained wetlands.  In October 1993, after the developer redesigned
the boundaries of the site and eliminated the disputed wetlands area,
the regulatory agency notified the developer that the agency would
withdraw its intent to deny the license. 

In December 1998, Nebraska denied US Ecology's application to
construct a disposal facility for commercial low-level radioactive
wastes on a site in Boyd County, Nebraska.  The state based its
decision on groundwater issues, the need for continuing active
maintenance after the site's closure, and US Ecology's financial
qualifications.  On January 15, 1999, US Ecology filed a petition
with the state to reverse Nebraska's license denial.  According to
the petition, the denial is arbitrary and capricious, is based on an
unreasonable interpretation of statutes and regulations, and is an
abuse of discretion that precludes any site from being licensed in
Nebraska.  The company alleged that the decision to deny the license
application was based on erroneous interpretations of data and
regulations and was politically influenced by the former state
governor. 

Prior to the petition, five utilities filed suit in the U.S. 
district court challenging actions taken by Nebraska and its
officials in reviewing US Ecology's license application.\3 The suit
alleged, among other things, that Nebraska regulators violated a
statutory and contractual obligation to exercise good faith in
their review of the license application and that they exhibited bias
or prejudice in their review.  The plaintiffs sought, among other
things, the removal of Nebraska from the licensing process, damages,
and a declaration that Nebraska violated the compact agreement. 

On April 16, 1999, the US district court issued a preliminary
injunction against Nebraska and others, finding that there is good
reason to think that Nebraska's license denial was politically
preordained. The court concluded that the Commission will likely win
on the merits of the case and that Nebraska had acted in bad faith
and therefore violated the compact agreement The court ruled that
there is strong evidence of bad faith from Nebraska in the licensing
process.  The following is some of the evidence of Nebraska's bad
faith cited by the court: 

  -- The former governor's campaign promise to kill the disposal
     facility and questionable behavior by his subordinates in an
     apparent effort to ensure that his political promise be carried
     out. 

  -- The refusal of the former governor's regulator to adopt a budget
     and timetable, potentially resulting in the waste of 8 years of
     work and $74 million. 

  -- Nebraska's 1993 and 1998 decisions to deny the license
     application. 

  -- Repeated litigation without merit in the district court.\4

On May 6, 1999, Nebraska's legislature passed a bill to remove the
state from the Central Interstate compact, and on May 12, 1999, the
governor signed the bill into law.  The new law takes effect on
August 29, 1999.  The law authorizes Nebraska's governor to notify
the governors of the other states belonging to the compact that
Nebraska is withdrawing from the compact.  Under the terms of the
compact agreement, withdrawals generally do not take effect until 5
years from the date of such notification. 

--------------------
\2 County of Boyd v US Ecology, 858 F Supp.  960 (D.  Neb.  1994). 

\3 Later, the Central Compact Commission, which was originally named
as a defendant in the suit, filed a motion realigning itself as a
plaintiff.  Also, US Ecology became a plaintiff in the lawsuit. 

\4 Entergy Arkansas, Inc.  v Nebraska, __ F Supp.2d--, 1999 WL
225849, at 18 (D.  Neb.  1999). 

   CENTRAL MIDWEST COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

In 1984, Illinois and Kentucky formed the Central Midwest compact to
develop and implement a solution to low-level radioactive waste
disposal issues.  In 1987, the compact designated Illinois as the
host state for the compact's disposal facility because Illinois
produced 98 percent of the region's low-level radioactive wastes.  By
the early 1990s, a site for the development of a low-level waste
disposal facility had been selected near Martinsville, the site was
studied, a facility had been designed, and the license application
was under review by the state.  However, in 1989, because of
questions about the process for selecting a new site for a disposal
facility and concerns about the suitability of a proposed site, the
Governor of Illinois and the state's legislature created an
independent commission to examine the safety of the proposed site. 
In 1992, the commission found the site unacceptable, rejecting the
conclusions of the state agency that had spent 8 years and about $85
million in selecting and studying the site. 

Since then, the state established a new siting process for developing
a regional disposal facility in Illinois.  The land for a disposal
facility site must be volunteered by both its owner and the
appropriate municipality or county government.  According to the
director of Illinois' Department of Nuclear Safety, however, the
state has abated but not suspended or halted its siting efforts
because of (1) the continued availability of disposal capacity for
the generators of low-level radioactive wastes in Illinois, (2)
uncertainties inherent in the national low-level radioactive waste
situation, and (3) concerns over the decline in waste volume and its
effect on disposal costs.  Waste generators in the state are able to
dispose of wastes in South Carolina and Utah, and if, when, and how
this will change is uncertain. 

The state is also concerned that a disposal facility is not
economical, considering today's waste volumes.  The Illinois
Department of Nuclear Safety, the state's low-level waste generators,
and Chem-Nuclear Systems LLC (the state's disposal facility
developer) recognized that the decline in waste volumes might
influence the economic viability of the planned regional disposal
facility.  For example, wastes generated in Illinois declined from
over 200,000 cubic feet shipped in 1986 to less than 50,000 cubic
feet in 1997.  As a result, the state and Chem-Nuclear developed an
economic model as a tool to evaluate various development
strategies.\5 The analyses using this model indicated that developing
the planned disposal facility would not be economically viable
because of the expected lower volume of wastes.  The analyses also
showed that the facility would not become economically viable until
the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in the state increases
the amount of low-level wastes generated for disposal.  According to
the Commonwealth Edison CompanyIllinois' major low-level radioactive
waste generator--developing a disposal facility in the 2010 time
frame makes sense because that is when an extensive decommissioning
period will begin for some of its 13 nuclear power plants.\6

The loss of access to disposal capacity at existing facilities would
influence how the state manages its low-level radioactive wastes. 
According to a state official, however, the loss of capacity does not
mean that the state would accelerate the siting and development of a
disposal facility in Illinois.  Absent large waste volumes from
decommissioning the nuclear power stations, the development of a
facility in the state remains cost prohibitive. 

In summary, the state of Illinois believes that the changes that have
occurred over the past several years strongly suggest that the need
to develop a disposal facility for commercially generated low-level
radioactive wastes in Illinois should be reevaluated.  These changes
included (1) the continued availability of disposal capacity outside
of Illinois, (2) a significant reduction in the volume of low-level
radioactive wastes being generated in Illinois, (3) the nuclear
utilities' decisions not to seek an extension to the life of their
nuclear plants nor to delay decommissioning following the termination
of the plants' operating licenses, and (4) the desire to improve the
site selection process. 

--------------------
\5 The model included parameters such as waste-volume projections,
capital construction costs, the period of recouping capital
investment, annual operating expense, interest rates, and profit that
could be varied, depending on the development scenario being
considered. 

\6 Commonwealth Edison shipped about 92 percent of Illinois'
low-level radioactive waste in 1997. 

   MIDWEST INTERSTATE COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4

In October 1982, a document outlining the formal provisions of the
Midwest compact was completed.  After the document's enactment by the
legislatures and approval by the governors of Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, the Congress
consented to the compact in 1985.  The seven states agreed that each
state would take its turn in hosting a disposal facility.  The states
decided that the host state was responsible for locating, designing,
constructing, and operating the facility.  In 1987, Michigan was
chosen to host the first low-level waste disposal facility because it
was projected to generate the most low-level wastes during the
20-year operating period of the first disposal facility.  Ohio was
projected to be the second largest generator and was chosen as the
first alternate host state. 

The Midwest Compact agreement made the selected host responsible for
choosing possible locations for a low-level radioactive waste
disposal facility within the state's borders.  The Michigan low-level
radioactive waste authority began a facility-siting process in 1987. 
By October 1989, the authority had designated three areas as
potentially suitable for siting a disposal facility.  Less than 1
year later, however, the authority had eliminated all three areas
from consideration.  The Midwest compact decided that Michigan had
unreasonable criteria that essentially precluded the state from
finding a suitable site.  In July 1991, the compact voted to expel
Michigan for not acting in good faith to honor a binding contractual
obligation to find a waste disposal site in Michigan.  As a first
alternate, Ohio became the selected host state for the compact's
first regional disposal facility for low-level radioactive wastes. 

On June 26, 1997, the Midwest Interstate Compact Commission noted
that it was at a critical point immediately prior to committing
considerable funds to a site selection process in Ohio.  At that
time, the Commission halted development activities for a regional
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.  The Commission also
relieved Ohio of its host state designation and obligation to find a
location for a regional disposal facility and develop it.  The
commission cited several reasons for its decision.  First, low-level
waste generators in the compact region had successfully instituted
waste management and treatment practices (e.g., waste minimization,
compaction, incineration, and evaporation) that continue to
dramatically reduce the amount of wastes annually shipped to disposal
facilities.  For example, wastes decreased from a high of 114,700
cubic feet in 1989, to 20,000 cubic feet in 1996.  Second, the
estimated cost of new disposal facilities has risen significantly and
has ranged from $105 million to $216 million, exclusive of operating
costs.  Third, Midwest compact generators had access to existing
low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities that appear to have
sufficient capacity to accept wastes for a lengthy period of time. 
Unexpected events involving existing, privately operated disposal
facilities in South Carolina, Utah, and possibly other locations have
created disincentives to develop new disposal capacity. 

   NORTHEAST INTERSTATE COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5

The Congress ratified the Northeast Interstate Compact in 1985.  Soon
thereafter, two of the original four member statesDelaware and West
Virginia--joined the Appalachian compact, and the remaining member
statesConnecticut and New Jerseywere designated as dual host
states.  As dual hosts, each state is responsible for establishing
the capacity to manage the low-level radioactive wastes generated
within its borders.  Both Connecticut and New Jersey developed
voluntary siting plans in which towns or regional groups are asked to
host the state's low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. 

Connecticut carried out a statewide screening effort in the early
1990s to identify candidate sites for a disposal facility.  Although
this effort led to the identification of three candidate sites,
vehement public and political protest over the selection of these
candidate sites in 1992 led the state's legislature to pass and the
governor to sign legislation terminating this siting effort. 
Connecticut has placed its voluntary siting process on hold. 
According to the Northeast Interstate Compact's regional management
plan, the reopening of the Barnwell, South Carolina, facility and the
availability of the Envirocare facility in Utah for some types of
low-level radioactive wastes made disposal possible for waste
generators in Connecticut.  This availability of out-of-state
disposal reduced the urgency for the development of in-state capacity
and gave the state's siting agency--the Connecticut Hazardous Waste
Management Service--an opportunity to consider a long-term storage
concept, called assured isolation, as an alternative to developing
a disposal facility. 

Proponents of the assured isolation concept believe that the concept
can be a solution to the issue of the long-term management of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes.  In their view,
assured isolation facilities could be safely operated at more
locations than traditional disposal sites and allow them to be
located at existing nuclear facilities.  They also believe that the
ability to continually inspect the structural integrity of the
facilities might help reduce public concerns over the facilities'
long-term performance.  Assured isolation for the foreseeable future
might have the added benefit of permitting the relatively short-lived
low-level radioactive wastes to decay during their isolation and then
be recycled or disposed of as normal trash. 

Although storage in an assured isolation facility is not prohibited
by law, there are legal concerns about whether storage for a period
of 100 to 300 years complies with the requirement for permanent
isolation in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of
1985.  According to a draft legal study prepared for Connecticut's
Hazardous Waste Management Service,\7 compliance with the 1985 act
depends on, among other things, an interpretation of the act's
requirement that compacts provide for the disposal of low-level
radioactive wastes generated within their respective regions. 
According to the study, there is no known case law that speaks to
this precise issue.  The study also concludes that the compact
probably provides an independent source of authority for the
management of the low-level radioactive wastes, including the use of
an assured isolation facility. 

Nevertheless, long-term storage is an interim, rather than final,
solution to the issue of the management of commercial low-level
radioactive wastes.  Eventually, a permanent solution for
longer-lived wasteseither permanent disposal or continued, monitored
storagewould be required.  Also, critics of the concept are
uncomfortable with the extensive reliance on human maintenance
required to ensure the successful isolation of the waste for 100 or
more years and doubt that the proposal would alleviate public
concerns over the management and disposal of low-level radioactive
wastes. 

Moreover, critics argue that it may be difficult to make adequate
arrangements to ensure that sufficient funds are available for
assured isolation followed by the recovery and permanent disposal of
some or all of the wastes in a disposal facility.  The director of
Connecticut's low-level radioactive waste program, however, disagrees
with this view.  In the director's opinion, uncertainty over funds
for institutional control and long-term liability for 100 or more
years into the future would be no higher for storage facilities than
for disposal facilities.  In addition, the director said, licenses
for long-term storage facilities would not be issued unless the
license applicants satisfactorily demonstrated that adequate
arrangements had been made to ensure that sufficient funds would be
available. 

In 1998, the New Jersey siting board suspended the siting process in
New Jersey.  In taking this action, the board noted the ongoing
efforts of low-level radioactive waste generators in the state to
minimize the volume of wastes requiring disposal, the continuing
availability of out-of-state disposal, and the capacity for on-site
storage over the short term, should the Barnwell facility be closed
to out-of-state wastes.  According to the Northeast compact, New
Jersey's siting board remains active and is working with the compact
and Connecticut to monitor the national situation.  If necessary,
according to the compact, the siting board is ready to restart the
siting process. 

--------------------
\7 The Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service commissioned
the analysis of certain legal issues surrounding the concept of
assured isolation for the management of low-level radioactive wastes
in Connecticut. 

   NORTHWEST COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6

The eight-member Northwest compact, comprising the states of Alaska,
Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, was
established in 1981 and ratified by the Congress in 1985.  The
compact's regional disposal facility is located on the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Hanford site on 100 acres of land subleased by US
Ecology from the state of Washington.  US Ecology's contract with
Washington expires on July 29, 2005. 

   ROCKY MOUNTAIN COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7

The Rocky Mountain compactconsisting of Colorado, Nevada, and New
Mexicowas established in 1983 and ratified by the Congress in 1985. 
The Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Board, which governs
the compact, has a contract with the Northwest compact and the state
of Washington to dispose of the compact's wastes at the Northwest
compact's Richland regional disposal facility. 

   SOUTHEAST COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8

In 1983, the eight states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia entered into
a cooperative agreement to form the Southeast compact.  The compact,
which was ratified by the Congress in 1985, allows its member states
to exclude out-of-region wastes from disposal at in-region
facilities.  South Carolina was to serve as the compact's first host
state, and the facility at Barnwell was scheduled to close at the end
of 1992. 

In 1986, the compact selected North Carolina as the second host
state, which obligated the state to develop a facility for the
region's low-level wastes for a period of 20 years.  The compact
required that the facility be developed no later than 1991 and gave
North Carolina the responsibility for financing, siting, and
licensing the facility.  North Carolina put a siting process in
place, and, in late 1992, the state authority submitted a license
application to the North Carolina Division of Radiation Protection
for a site in Wake County.  However, the state has not issued a
license to construct and operate the planned facility. 

Barnwell served as the original disposal facility for waste
generators in all of the compact's original eight states until 1995,
when South Carolina withdrew from the compact.  South Carolina
prohibited the generators of low-level wastes in North Carolina from
disposing of their wastes at the Barnwell facility because, in South
Carolina's view, North Carolina was not acting in good faith to
develop a new facility.  The prohibition has not been challenged in
court and remains in force. 

The Southeast compact agreement provides that each host state must
pay to develop its facility and that the compact commission is not
responsible for these costs.  However, much of the cost of selecting
and licensing the proposed site in North Carolina was provided
voluntarily by the compact commission.  The funds were collected by
the compact in the form of fees on the wastes disposed of at the
Barnwell facility through 1995.  However, after South Carolina
withdrew from the compact, the Southeast compact was left without
this source of funding.  North Carolina reduced, and eventually
stopped, its licensing effort because of what it characterized as a
lack of funds.  According to the Southeast Compact Commission, the
commission was not willing to provide more funds unless North
Carolina would commit to building a disposal facility.  Such a
commitment was requested but never provided. 

In 1997, a group composed of most of the compact region's utilities
made a proposal under which the compact and regional waste generators
would provide necessary funding in exchange for certain conditions
and guarantees.  The compact agreed to the proposal in concept and
made further funding by the compact contingent on North Carolina's
agreement in principle to the proposal or to an alternative proposal
acceptable to the group.  North Carolina did not support the proposal
because, among other things, the proposal would require that the
state assume the responsibility for paying the debt that would be
created by accepting funds from the compact and regional waste
generators to develop the proposed disposal facility. 

In December 1997, North Carolina shut down its low-level waste-siting
project, pending the Southeast compact's reversal of its funding
position or receipt of other instructions from the state legislature. 
Instead, the state's siting authority sought the legislature's
approval to begin reviewing a long-term storage option as a possible
alternative for developing the previously planned disposal facility. 
This storage approach would permit the disposal of waste materials
contaminated with relatively short-lived radionuclides as normal
trash following a storage period.  Waste materials contaminated with
longer-lived radionuclides would eventually be disposed of in a much
smaller disposal facility than the state had planned to develop for
the Southeast compact. 

On April 28, 1999, the Southeast compact's commission notified
officials of North Carolina that the state was in violation of
compact laws and requested a written plan and schedule from the state
that would provide a disposal facility for the region and would
return the state to compliance with the law.  As of June 1999, North
Carolina had not responded.  Therefore, compact commissioners from
Florida and Tennessee filed a complaint against North Carolina for
not fulfilling its obligations to the compact, as a designated host
state, to provide a disposal facility for the Southeast compact.  The
complaint recommended that the commission impose several sanctions,
including requiring the return of almost $80 million, plus interest,
in funds provided by the commission to the state and requiring North
Carolina to store all waste from the region until a new regional
facility is provided. 

On July 27, 1999, the sanctions committee of the Southeast compact
voted unanimously to recommend to the compact's commission the
initiation of a formal inquiry to determine if a violation of
commission law had occurred and, if so, what sanctions should be
applied.  The commission addressed this issue at its August 19, 1999,
meeting.  One day prior to the sanctions committee's recommendation,
the State of North Carolina enacted legislation withdrawing the state
from the Southeast compact.\8 The legislation also repealed related
statutes and, among other things, directed the state's Radiation
Protection Commission to (1) review the availability and adequacy of
facilities for the management of low-level radioactive wastes
produced by waste generators in North Carolina and (2) formulate, by
May 15, 2000, a recommended plan for complying with the state's
responsibilities under the compact acts. 

--------------------
\8 General Assembly of North Carolina Session Law 1999-0357, July 26,
1999. 

   SOUTHWESTERN COMPACT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9

In 1985, California named US Ecology its license designee and
authorized the company to (1) screen potential sites for a disposal
facility for waste generators within the state, (2) identify a
candidate site, (3) investigate the site's suitability, and (4)
construct and operate the facility as licensed and regulated by the
state.  In 1987, California entered into a compact with Arizona,
North Dakota, and South Dakota in which California agreed to develop
and operate a disposal facility that would serve the needs of waste
generators in those four states.  After US Ecology evaluated
potential sites, a 1,000-acre site in Ward Valley, California, was
selected for a disposal facility.  However, the construction of the
facility depends on the Department of the Interior's transfer of the
land to the state because the site is on federally owned land in the
Mojave Desert. 

To date, Interior has not transferred the land.  A December 1995
electronic message from a member of the White House's Council on
Environmental Quality illustrates that while Interior believed the
Ward Valley site to be safe, political considerations may have
prevented transferring the land to California.  The message states,
in part, that California's position that low-level radioactive wastes
were piling up in universities, hospitals, and other places unfit for
storage was mostly legitimate. In addition, the message continues,
Interior officials, relying on a National Academy of Sciences
analysis\9 believed that the site can be operated and used with
complete safety and that Interior would like to move ahead with the
land transfer.  The message goes on to state, however, that they
[Interior] believe that, as a political matter, the Administration
simply cannot of its own volition agree to hand the site over in
exchange for a check and an unpopular governor's promise to do the
right thing.

In July 1997, we reported on Interior's actions on California's
request to purchase the Ward Valley site so that the state could
build the facility.\10 We concluded that Interior had been unwilling
to accept California's explicit authority and findings concerning
radiological safety as adequate to permit the Department to decide on
the proposed land transfer.  Instead, Interior decided that it must
independently determine if the site is suitable for a disposal
facility.  California and US Ecology argue that these issues are
outside Interior's authority and expertise and that Interior does not
have the authority to independently determine if Ward Valley is
suitable.  Their position is that the regulation of radiological
safety issues is the state's responsibility because of the state's
agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the
Atomic Energy Act. 

In addition, as we reported in 1997, most of the substantive issues
that the public raised to Interior for its consideration had already
been addressed by California and Interior's Bureau of Land
Management.  Subsequent new information, such as the National Academy
of Sciences' report, generally favors the proposed facility. 

At that time, actions concerning the Ward Valley transfer were
pending before two separate federal courts.  On March 31, 1999, the
U.S.  District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order in
favor of the federal government in consolidated lawsuits concerning
the proposed Ward Valley site.\11 The actions, which were filed by
the state of California and US Ecology in January 1997, sought to
compel Interior to transfer to the state the federal land on which
the site is located.  The court, however, declined to order the
Secretary to proceed with the transfer because he is not required to
do so under federal law.\12 On June 2, 1999, the Governor of
California announced that the state would not appeal the Ward Valley
decision.  In addition, separate lawsuits concerning the site remain
pending before the U.S.  Court of Federal Claims.  In these suits,
California and US Ecology are pursuing financial relief for breach of
contract claims related to the land transfer request. 

In March 1999, the Secretary of the Interior wrote to the Governor of
California to explore alternatives to the proposed land transfer,
which would resolve the situation and potentially settle pending
litigation.  The Secretary said that the steps necessary to conclude
the action would be substantial.  Some of the necessary actions
include (1) an extensive testing and analysis of tritium and related
substances at the site, (2) a comprehensive supplemental
environmental impact statement, and (3) a resolution of whether the
California state agency seeking to purchase the Ward Valley land has
the authority to do so.  On June 2, 1999, the Governor announced that
he had proposed that the president of the University of California
chair an advisory group charged with exploring ways to find workable
alternatives for California's low-level radioactive waste disposal. 
As of November 1998, almost $93 million had been spent to develop a
low-level radioactive waste disposal site in California. 

--------------------
\9 The National Academy of Sciences issued a report on Ward Valley
issues in May 1995. 

\10 Radioactive Waste:  Interior's Continuing Review of the Proposed
Transfer of the Ward Valley Waste Site (GAO/RCED-97-184, July 15,
1997). 

\11 California Department of Health Services v.  Babbitt, __ F. 
Supp.2d __, 1999 U.S.  Dist.  Lexis 5899 (D.  DC, 1999). 

\12 Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, a tract of
public lands may be sold where the Secretary determines that the sale
of the tract will serve important public objectives. 

   TEXAS COMPACT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10

In September 1998, the Congress passed, and the President signed,
legislation approving the Texas compact, which includes the states of
Maine, Texas, and Vermont.  The compact legislation designated Texas
as the host state.  However, the search for a low-level waste
disposal facility site began in 1981 when the Texas legislature
created a disposal authority to finance, construct, operate, and
decommission a waste disposal facility for low-level radioactive
wastes produced in Texas. 

By 1987, the authority had identified several possible sites in
Hudspeth County, Texas.  In 1992, the authority selected a site
within the county and submitted an application to a state licensing
commission.  However, the Texas licensing commission subsequently
denied the license application for the candidate site.  The
commission cited uncertainties about a geologic fault beneath the
site and socioeconomic concerns, despite the fact that the
commission's staff had recommended approval on the basis of its
environmental and safety analysis.  The analysis had found that
issuance of a license for the proposed project will not pose an
unacceptable risk to public health and safety or cause a long-term
detrimental impact on the environment. The program authority filed a
motion for rehearing, but the motion was overruled in December 1998. 

Texas' low-level radioactive waste authority, having been denied a
disposal license, began considering new options for siting, including
developing an assured isolation facility for the long-term storage of
commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes.  In response to
a question on whether a law requiring the development of a facility
for assured isolation of wastes would satisfy the state's compact
obligations, the state's attorney general concluded that such a
facility would comply with the state's obligations to manage and
provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes generated
within the compact.  However, the attorney general also concluded
that a facility for the assured isolation of wastes would not
currently satisfy the state's obligation to permanently dispose of
these wastes.  In late 1998, the disposal authority estimated that
about 61,000 cubic feet of radioactive waste is currently stored in
that state, of which, about 58,000 cubic feet was generated by and is
stored by 18 industrial users of radioactive materials. 

Legislation authorizing assured isolation in Texas failed to pass in
1999, and the siting authority was abolished and its functions passed
to the licensing commission.  Because of these actions, according to
an official of the former siting authority, prospects for significant
progress in Texas are uncertain. 

   UNAFFILIATED STATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:11

Several states have either not joined compacts or have been ousted or
withdrawn from compacts.  Unaffiliated states include Michigan, South
Carolina, Massachusetts, New York, the District of Columbia, New
Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.\13 Like those states
affiliated with compacts, these states have made little progress in
siting low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. 

Michigan was expelled from the Midwest compact in 1991.  In 1995, a
policy advisory board issued a series of recommendations to Michigan
regarding the conduct of a voluntary host community process,
revisions to the state's siting criteria, and consideration of
options to join a compact.  Amendments to Michigan state law must be
enacted before these recommendations can be implemented and a new
siting process is begun.  However, there is currently no effort under
way to enact the amendments. 

In 1995, South Carolina enacted legislation that withdrew the state
from the Southeast compact.  In promoting the state's withdrawal from
the compact, the governor expressed impatience with North Carolina's
lack of progress in developing a new regional disposal facility.  The
legislation also reopened the Barnwell facility to out-of-region
wastes, excluded wastes from North Carolina until the state issues a
license for a low-level waste facility, and imposed a tax of $235 per
cubic foot.  The tax provides revenue for the South Carolina
Educational Assistance Endowment Fund, although revenues from the
Barnwell facility have been substantially less than predicted because
of lower-than-expected waste volumes.  The governor and the state
legislature are considering proposals on the future of the Barnwell
facility, including the possibility that the state might rejoin the
Southeast Compact or some other compact, or that the state might
restrict the acceptance of wastes at the facility to wastes generated
within the state. 

In 1995, Massachusetts hired a contractor to plan and conduct a
statewide mapping and screening program to exclude areas unsuitable
for a disposal facility.  However, in 1996, the Massachusetts
low-level waste management board voted to cease all in-state siting
efforts because of the renewed access to the Barnwell disposal site
and the expanded availability of the Envirocare facility.  The board
also agreed to complete some site-planning tasks in case in-state
siting becomes necessary in the future.  The board's action was
viewed by most users of radioactive materials as justified to provide
time to assess the long-range impact of the reopening of the Barnwell
facility and other developments before incurring significant
additional expenses associated with siting a facility. 

In 1986, New York enacted its Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management
Act and created an independent commission to select a site and
disposal method for a low-level waste disposal facility.  Beginning
in 1988, the commission conducted a multistep screening process that
identified five potential sites for on-site investigations by
September 1989.  The commission had intended to conduct initial
on-site technical investigations of the site and then select at least
two sites for a more intensive characterization process.  However,
the governor suspended site investigation activities after strong
local protest over the candidate disposal locations.  During the 1995
state legislative session, the state legislature declined to approve
funding for the siting commission, and the commission's activities
were subsequently phased out.  To date, a revised siting process has
not been determined. 

The District of Columbia is not planning to site a low-level waste
disposal facility because of its dense population and the small
amount of low-level wastes generated within its borders.  Similarly,
New Hampshire is not planning to build a facility because of the
small amounts of wastes generated.  Finally, neither Puerto Rico nor
Rhode Island is planning to site a low-level radioactive waste
disposal facility. 

--------------------
\13 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended,
included the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states. 

CURRENT FACILITIES FOR DISPOSING
OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
========================================================== Appendix II

   BARNWELL FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

The Barnwell Waste Management facility is located on 235 acres of
state-owned land in Barnwell County, South Carolina, near DOE's
Savannah River Site.  The Barnwell facility is operated by
Chem-Nuclear Systems, LLC, on land that is owned by the state of
South Carolina and leased to the company. 

   Figure II.1:  A Disposal Trench
   at the Barnwell Facility

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As an NRC agreement state, South Carolina regulates low-level
radioactive waste disposal operations at the Barnwell facility. 
Wastes are shipped to the landfill in prepackaged containers.  Waste
containers are placed in concrete vaults located in disposal cells
excavated up to 30 feet below grade.  Barnwell is located in an area
of clay and sandy soil.  A sand layer covers the bottom of the
trench.  When a vault is full, its concrete lid is put in place.  One
or two additional vaults may be placed on top until the vaults are
stacked two or three high.  Backfill around and over the filled
concrete vaults consists of sand and soil.  A sand, clay,
high-density polyethylene, and topsoil cap covers the disposal
trenches to provide a barrier to the infiltration of rainwater.  Air,
surface water, groundwater, vegetation, and soil samples are
monitored regularly.  Each sample is analyzed in Chem-Nuclear's
laboratory under the auspices of the state.  There are 92 monitoring
wells on site, 28 wells at the site's boundary, 57 wells off site,
and 275 sumps in waste burial trenches. 

As can be seen in table II.1, over the years, the Barnwell site has
accepted all classes of low-level radioactive wastes from 1986
through 1998.  By far, the predominant amount of wastes was from
class A wastes, which have dropped dramatically in volume over the
last 13 years. 

                                    Table II.1
                     
                     Volume of Wastes Disposed of at Barnwell
                       by Class of Wastes From 1986 Through
                                       1998

                                   (Cubic feet)

                                Waste classification
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              A                    B                     C
     -------------------  --------------------  --------------------
Yea
r       Volume   Percent      Volume   Percent      Volume   Percent  Brokered\a
---  ---------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------
198    969,673        95      43,693         4       6,399         1      26,090
 6
198    780,591        95      30,731         4       7,063         1     137,392
 7
198    675,622        94      33,030         5       9,428         1     213,894
 8
198    626,014        94      29,316         4      12,034         2     435,936
 9
199    455,886        94      23,103         5       6,206         1     302,877
 0
199    462,956        93      24,803         5       7,686         2     294,198
 1
199    433,476        92      28,192         6      10,437         2     356,552
 2
199    280,936        89      25,257         8      10,627         3     285,467
 3
199    233,138        89      18,659         7       9,222         4     472,356
 4
199    178,394        91      13,649         7       5,031         3     287,921
 5
199    113,501        81      19,722        14       7,052         5     185,290
 6
199    195,440        86      23,831        10       8,764         4
 7
199    160,885        83      21,276        11      12,355         6
 8
================================================================================
Tot  5,566,512               335,262               112,304             2,997,973
 al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The "Brokered" classification is used because prior to the use of
the Uniform Manifest reporting system, brokers were not required to
report the activity/concentration of the waste shipments from
individual generators.  This reporting oversight was corrected in
1997 for Barnwell. 

   RICHLAND FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

The Richland facility is located on a 100-acre site contained within
DOE's Hanford site--about 25 miles northwest of Richland, Washington. 
The site is leased to the state of Washington by DOE and subleased to
US Ecology, the facility's operator, by the state.  The current
sublease to US Ecology expires on July 29, 2005. 

   Figure II.2:  Overview of the
   Richland Disposal Facility
   Showing Various Available
   Trenches

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  US Ecology

For the Richland disposal facility, the state of Washington regulates
the types of low-level radioactive wastes authorized for receipt and
disposal, the transportation and handling of these wastes, and the
methods of disposing of the wastes.  All wastes are received in
packaged shipments, as bulk wastes are not accepted.  Packages
include metal drums, metal boxes, land-sea containers, et cetera. 
Class A wastes are placed in disposal trenches about 50 feet deep and
800 to 1,000 feet long.  Once a portion of the trench is filled, the
trench is backfilled around the waste material, and an interim cap of
6 inches of rock is put in place.  Class B and class C wastes are
placed in concrete engineered barriers and then placed in a disposal
trench.  The site is scheduled for closure in 2056, at which time, a
permanent cap will be emplaced over burial trenches.  The arid
climate and geology of the area create a desert-like environment. 
The nearest aquifer is over 300 feet below the ground surface. 
Periodic air, soil, water, and vegetation samples are taken from
locations on and around the Washington facility.  An independent
laboratory analyzes the samples and results are submitted to the
state.  Seven groundwater-monitoring wells and three monitoring wells
in the unsaturated zone above the water table have been installed at
the facility, and a work plan for sampling the soil in the disposal
area has been proposed.  Air quality is continuously monitored during
site operations. 

   Figure II.3:  Putting the
   Finishing Touches on Disposed
   Wastes at the Richland Facility

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  US Ecology

US Ecology charges its disposal customers a fee for each cubic foot
of wastes received.  Disposal rates (fees) since 1993 have been
regulated by the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. 
As a state-regulated utility, US Ecology is guaranteed both
reimbursement of its fixed costs and a rate of return on its fixed
costs.  Operational revenue for the Washington facility is currently
funded from charges based on customers' annual projections for waste
volume, exposure, number of containers, number of shipments, and site
availability.  As the volume of wastes disposed of at the facility
has declined over the years, disposal fees have increased to cover
the fixed costs of disposal operations. 

In addition to these regulated charges, disposal fees include an
assessment for the perpetual care and maintenance of the facility. 
These funds are put into dedicated trust funds by the state of
Washington.  Over $26 million is available for the closing of the
Richland facility, and another post-closure fund also has over $26
million available.  Finally, customers also pay a per-cubic-foot
economic impact surcharge that goes to the local county and into a
Hanford Area Investment fund.  Since 1992, this surcharge has
generated over $4.1 million. 

Table II.2 shows that from 1986 through 1998, more than 98 percent of
the volume of commercially generated low-level radioactive wastes
disposed of at the Richland facility were Class A wastes and that,
over this period of time, the volume of disposed wastes has been
declining.  Contributing to the wastes that Richland has or will
receive are three nuclear power plants that are located in the region
that Richland servesthe Northwest and Rocky Mountain compacts.  One
plantFt.  St.  Vrain in Coloradohas been decommissioned.  A second
plantTrojan, near Portland, Oregonhas been retired and is now being
dismantled.  The third plantWNP-2is an operating commercial plant
located in another area of DOE's Hanford site. 

                                    Table II.2
                     
                     Volume of Wastes Disposed of at Richland
                       by Class of Wastes From 1986 Through
                                       1998

                                   (Cubic feet)

                                Waste Classification
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              A                    B                     C
     -------------------  --------------------  --------------------
Yea
r       Volume   Percent      Volume   Percent      Volume   Percent  Brokered\a
---  ---------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------
198    594,577        98       6,007         1       6,120         1      36,568
 6
198    448,712        98       7,119         2       1,343         0      97,722
 7
198    294,967        98       3,969         1       2,243         1     102,451
 8
198    251,140        98       3,956         2       1,978         1     151,217
 9
199    209,617        99       1,932         1         612         0      83,139
 0
199    328,596        99       3,448         1       1,340         0      85,823
 1
199    298,743        98       4,353         1       1,624         1      93,682
 2
199    172,266        99         662         0         702         0      13,703
 3
199     97,705        99         397         0         202         0      26,448
 4
199    125,951       100         530         0           0         0      78,482
 5
199    104,309        99         821         1          57         0
 6
199     89,881        99       1,139         1          65         0
 7
199    143,972        99          96         0         699         0
 8
================================================================================
Tot  3,160,436                34,429                16,985               769,235
 al
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The "Brokered" classification is used because prior to the use of
the Uniform Manifest reporting system, brokers were not required to
report the activity/concentration of the waste shipments from
individual generators.  This reporting oversight was corrected in
1996 for the Richland disposal facility. 

   ENVIROCARE FACILITY
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

Since 1988, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., has operated a 540-acre
commercial radioactive waste disposal facility located 80 miles west
of Salt Lake City.  The facility is located in western Tooele County
within a 100-square-mile hazardous waste zone established by the
county.  In addition to the Envirocare facility, the hazardous waste
zone includes two incinerators and the Army's depot, nerve gas
storage site, and Dugway Proving Grounds.  There is no town within 40
miles.  The site is located on an ancient lake bed just west of the
Cedar Mountains, and the surrounding land is open range used
primarily for grazing. 

   Figure II.4:  Overview of the
   Envirocare of Utah Waste
   Disposal Facility

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Envirocare of Utah

The Envirocare facility is authorized to dispose of large quantities
of bulk low-level radioactive wastes, naturally occurring radioactive
wastes, and mixed low-level radioactive wastes under specified
restrictions.  The license restrictions include limits on
radionuclides and concentrations of radionuclides, and specifications
must be imposed on the physical and chemical properties of the
wastes.  The state of Utah initially licensed the facility in 1988 as
a facility for disposing of naturally occurring radioactive wastes. 
In March 1991, the state amended the license to permit the disposal
of low-level radioactive wastes.  Finally, NRC has licensed the
Envirocare facility to dispose of uranium and thorium mill tailings. 
In addition to commercial waste generators, the Environmental
Protection Agency, DOE, and the Department of Defense have shipped
wastes to Envirocare for treatment and disposal. 

Table II.3 shows the amount of operating wastes and cleanup wastes
that has been disposed of at the Envirocare facility, as well as the
amount of radiation over the last 8 years.  Unlike Barnwell and
Richland, the quantities do not show a decreasing trend, and the
waste activities are increasing. 

                               Table II.3
                
                Volume and Curies of Wastes Disposed of
                       at the Envirocare Facility

                                   Waste Volume
                        ----------------------------------
Year                     Operating     Cleanup     Total\a      Curies
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
1991                        10,233     113,322     123,554         N/A
1992                        58,380   2,999,882   3,058,262          22
1993                         2,119   1,109,664   1,111,783          17
1994                         8,168     492,375     500,543           8
1995                        53,753     523,036     576,789          12
1996                       166,787   1,669,359   1,836,146          88
1997                       257,299   1,959,135   2,216,434         142
1998                        62,364   1,017,386   1,079,750         127
======================================================================
Total\a                    619,104   9,884,158   0,503,261         416
                                             1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend N/A = not applicable

\a Totals may not add because of rounding. 

Source:  DOE's Manifest Information Management System.  Envirocare
data prior to 1998 from monthly reports by Envirocare to the
Northwest compact. 

Typically, the low-level radioactive wastes received for disposal at
the Envirocare facility are bulky soil or soil-like materials or
debris originating from cleanup projects.  To dispose of these
materials, Envirocare uses a different form of land burial from that
used at either the Barnwell or Richland disposal facilities.  Unlike
the latter two facilities, at the Envirocare facility, low-level
radioactive wastes are placed in above-grade disposal cells
consisting of natural materials, including clay and rocks, as liner
and cap materials.  Prior to receiving an initial, low-level
radioactive waste shipment for disposal, Envirocare obtains from the
waste generator, documentation that the low-level radioactive wastes
have been approved for export/transfer to the Envirocare disposal
facility.  Approval is required from the low-level radioactive waste
compact of origin or from states unaffiliated with a low-level
radioactive waste compact or the state of origin, to the extent that
a state can exercise such control.  Wastes are disposed of in 12-inch
layers called lifts. Any waste containers received at the landfill
are spilled and compacted with fill materials.  Wastes are compacted
and mixed, then capped with fill material.  Wastes are sometimes
encapsulated in concrete.  A waste cell must be permanently capped
within a reasonable time from being filled.  Mixed wastes are treated
by encapsulating the contents in plastic, placing the plastic bundle
in the landfill, and then capping the wastes with fill materials. 

   Figure II.5:  Unloading Bulk
   Waste Materials from a Rail Car
   at the Envirocare Disposal
   Facility

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  Envirocare of Utah

(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM COMPACTS OF STATES
========================================================== 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.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION
========================================================== Appendix II

(See figure in printed edition.)

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

GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
========================================================== Appendix VI

GAO CONTACTS

(Ms.) Gary L.  Jones, (202) 512-3841
Dwayne E.  Weigel, (202) 512-3841

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, John Bagnulo, Charles Sylvis, John
Cass, and Susan Irwin made key contributions to this report. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1

Nuclear Regulation:  Better Oversight Needed to Ensure Accumulation
of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power Plants (GAO/RCED-99-75, May 3,
1999)

Radioactive Waste:  Interior's Continuing Review of the Proposed
Transfer of the Ward Valley Waste Site GAO/RCED-97-184, July 15,
1997)

Radioactive Waste:  Status of Commercial Low-Level Waste Facilities
(GAO/RCED-95-67, May 5, 1995). 

Nuclear Waste:  Connecticut's First Site Selection Process for a
Disposal Facility (GAO/RCED-93-81, Apr.  5, 1993). 

Nuclear Waste:  New York's Adherence to Site Selection Procedures is
Unclear GAO/RCED-92-172, Aug.  11, 1992). 

Nuclear Waste:  Slow Progress Developing Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Facilities (GAO/RCED-92-61, Jan.  10, 1992). 

*** End of document. ***