This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-761 
entitled 'Nuclear Waste: Plans for Addressing Most Buried Transuranic 
Wastes Are Not Final, and Preliminary Cost Estimates Will Likely 
Increase' which was released on June 22, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related 
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

June 2007: 

Nuclear Waste: 

Plans for Addressing Most Buried Transuranic Wastes Are Not Final, and 
Preliminary Cost Estimates Will Likely Increase: 

GAO-07-761: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-761, a report to the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Since the 1940s, the development of nuclear weapons technologies has 
generated transuranic wastes—materials contaminated by certain man-made 
radioactive elements. These wastes can remain dangerous for thousands 
of years. Until 1970, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) predecessors 
buried these wastes in shallow pits and trenches. Today, state 
officials and communities near DOE’s major disposal sites have 
expressed concerns that such wastes might contaminate important ground 
and surface water resources. 

GAO was asked to (1) determine the legal requirements and policies 
affecting DOE’s efforts to address transuranic wastes buried before 
1970, (2) determine what DOE is doing to address sites where these 
transuranic wastes are buried, and (3) assess the reliability of DOE’s 
estimated costs to address these sites. 

We met with federal and state officials at five DOE sites containing 
buried transuranic wastes, reviewed environmental laws and guidance, 
and obtained buried waste cleanup cost estimates from each site. 

In commenting on this report, DOE generally agreed with our findings, 
and provided some clarifying comments. 

What GAO Found: 

Cleanup agreements with federal and state agencies require DOE to 
investigate and clean up the five major DOE sites where transuranic and 
other hazardous wastes were buried. While DOE has long considered pre-
1970s buried wastes permanently disposed, in 1989, the sites where most 
of these wastes are buried were listed as “Superfund” sites subject to 
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). CERCLA requires that DOE determine the nature and 
extent of contamination at each waste site and determine what cleanup 
action, if any, is needed to protect human health and the environment. 
All five disposal sites are scheduled to have cleanup completed by 
2025. 

DOE is addressing the transuranic wastes buried at two sites, but it is 
still investigating cleanup options at the other three locations. At 
Oak Ridge and Savannah River, DOE is leaving the transuranic wastes in 
place under an earthen cap designed to prevent the wastes from 
migrating and taking steps to prevent animal and human access to the 
sites. In contrast, DOE is still investigating cleanup options at the 
Idaho National Laboratory, the Hanford Site, and the Los Alamos 
National Laboratory––where about 90 percent of DOE’s transuranic wastes 
are buried. DOE has begun to remove a small amount of waste at the 
Idaho and Hanford sites, but how much buried transuranic wastes 
eventually will be removed or treated in place at these sites is 
currently undetermined. 

DOE’s preliminary estimate of the cost to address the five waste sites 
where transuranic wastes are buried is about $1.6 billion in 2006 
dollars, but the estimate is likely to increase for several reasons. 
For example, the estimates reflect the costs of leaving most waste 
under earthen barriers—typically the least expensive approach. If DOE 
is required to retrieve substantial portions of these wastes, costs 
would increase dramatically. In addition, the estimates exclude unknown 
costs, such as the cost of disposing wastes off-site, if necessary. For 
example, DOE’s lifecycle cost estimate to remove transuranic wastes 
buried near the Columbia River at the Hanford site could triple once 
options and costs for disposal are fully evaluated. As DOE further 
evaluates the risks, benefits, and costs of cleanup options, its 
policies require it to improve the reliability of cost estimates. Thus, 
GAO is not making recommendations at this time. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making recommendations at this time. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-761]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact James Cosgrove, 202-512-
3841 or cosgrovej@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Cleanup Agreements Require DOE to Address Sites Where Transuranic 
Wastes Are Buried: 

DOE Is Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes in Place at Two Sites but 
Is Still Developing Cleanup Plans at the Largest Waste Sites: 

Estimated Costs to Address Waste Disposal Areas in Which Transuranic 
Wastes Are Buried Will Likely Increase: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix III: Contact Information and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Interagency Agreement Schedule for Addressing DOE Sites 
Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes: 

Table 2: Summary of DOE Estimated Lifecycle Costs to Address Disposal 
Areas Containing Buried Transuranic and Other Hazardous Wastes: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Typical Disposal of Transuranic and Other Wastes in Unlined 
Trench at the Hanford Site Prior to 1970: 

Figure 2. Example of an Engineered Barrier Constructed over a Burial 
Ground Containing Radioactive or Hazardous Wastes: 

Figure 3: Aerial View of an Engineered Barrier under Construction at 
Oak Ridge: 

Abbreviations: 

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended: 

WIPP: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

June 22, 2007: 

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable David L. Hobson: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

Since the 1940s, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessors 
have operated a nationwide complex of facilities used to research, 
design, and manufacture nuclear weapons and related technologies. While 
these activities are important for national defense, they have left a 
legacy of radioactive and other hazardous wastes that have contaminated 
or could contaminate the environment. Among them is a large quantity of 
transuranic wastes--typically, discarded rags, tools, equipment, soils, 
or other solid materials that have been contaminated by man-made 
radioactive elements, such as plutonium or americium. Transuranic 
wastes remain radioactive for extremely long periods--hundreds of 
thousands of years, in some cases. Inhaling or ingesting even miniscule 
quantities of some transuranic elements can cause cancer in humans. 

According to DOE, the department has buried or stored approximately 
238,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes (equal to the volume of 
about 100 Olympic-sized swimming pools) at its sites. About 111,000 
cubic meters of these wastes were generated mostly after 1970, and then 
stored at various locations with the bulk of these wastes intended for 
transfer to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)--a deep geologic 
repository in New Mexico designed for permanent disposal of transuranic 
wastes.[Footnote 1] The other 127,000 cubic meters of transuranic 
wastes were disposed of, generally before 1970, when DOE buried these 
wastes in shallow pits and trenches, often with other radioactive and 
hazardous wastes.[Footnote 2] DOE estimates that most of these 
transuranic wastes are buried at its Hanford Site in Washington state 
and the Idaho National Laboratory, while almost all of the remaining 
transuranic wastes are buried at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 
New Mexico, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, and the 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina. 

In addition to the threats that buried transuranic wastes may pose, the 
other radioactive and hazardous wastes buried with them may pose 
additional threats. Some of these wastes emit skin-penetrating 
radiation and cannot be directly handled by humans. Other wastes, such 
as organic solvents and toxic metals, are volatile. In some cases, 
these wastes can migrate readily through soil, especially if exposed to 
water, and may contaminate surface waters and groundwater. 

Given the potential long-term threat that buried transuranic and other 
radioactive and hazardous wastes may pose to human health and the 
environment, including their potential to contaminate water resources, 
state environmental protection officials and communities adjacent to 
these disposal sites have expressed concerns about these wastes. You 
asked us to (1) determine the legal requirements and policies governing 
DOE's efforts to address transuranic wastes buried before 1970, (2) 
determine what DOE is doing to address sites where these transuranic 
wastes are buried, and (3) assess the reliability of DOE's estimated 
costs to address these sites. 

To conduct our work, we visited the five DOE sites that contain most of 
DOE's transuranic wastes buried before 1970. We met with local DOE 
officials at these five largest burial sites, which include the Hanford 
Site, the Idaho National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, the Savannah River Site, and the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. To determine the legal requirements and policies governing 
DOE's efforts to address its buried transuranic wastes, we reviewed 
federal environmental laws and regulations; DOE guidance concerning 
hazardous and radioactive wastes; Federal Facility Agreements and 
Orders; a May 2006 federal district court decision; and internal DOE, 
federal, and private studies on the storage and disposition of 
transuranic wastes. To better understand these laws, regulations, 
agreements, and policies we interviewed state environmental protection 
officials and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials that 
oversee each of the buried waste locations. To determine what DOE is 
doing to address sites where transuranic wastes are buried, we reviewed 
waste cleanup planning documents that DOE prepared for these sites. In 
this context, we also interviewed scientific experts, DOE site project 
managers, state environmental regulatory officials, and EPA officials 
providing management and oversight at buried waste locations. Finally, 
to assess the reliability of DOE's estimates of the cost of addressing 
sites where transuranic wastes are buried, we analyzed each DOE field 
location's fiscal year 2006 estimates for projects that included 
cleaning up buried transuranic wastes. A more detailed description of 
our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our 
work between May 2006 and May 2007 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Cleanup agreements entered into with federal and state environmental 
agencies require DOE to investigate and, as necessary, clean up sites 
where radioactive and other hazardous wastes, including transuranic 
wastes, were buried from the 1940s through 1970s. While DOE considered 
transuranic wastes buried prior to 1970 to have been permanently 
disposed of, the sites where most of these wastes are buried have since 
become subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), also 
known as "Superfund," and other environmental laws. Under CERCLA, EPA 
evaluates waste sites for possible inclusion on the National Priorities 
List--EPA's list of the nation's most serious contaminated sites that 
contain radioactive or other hazardous substances. In 1989, EPA placed 
the sites where DOE buried most of its transuranic wastes on the 
National Priorities List (Hanford Site, Idaho National Laboratory, Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site). CERCLA 
requires DOE to determine the nature and extent of contamination at 
each of these sites; identify options for addressing the wastes and the 
relative risks, effectiveness, and costs of each option; and to enter 
into a cleanup agreement with EPA for the expeditious completion of all 
necessary cleanup actions. DOE has entered into agreements with EPA and 
the affected states for carrying out cleanup activities at these four 
sites. In addition, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is not 
listed on the National Priorities List, is being cleaned up in 
accordance with similar agreements with New Mexico under other 
environmental laws. The agreements for the five sites set milestones by 
which DOE is expected to complete cleanups at the sites. Of the five 
sites, the latest scheduled completion date is for the Idaho National 
Laboratory in 2025. 

DOE has made cleanup decisions and is addressing the transuranic wastes 
buried at Oak Ridge and Savannah River, but it is still investigating 
cleanup options at the other three locations. At Oak Ridge and Savannah 
River, where about 10 percent of DOE's transuranic wastes are buried, 
DOE is leaving the transuranic wastes in place under a man-made barrier 
constructed of layered vegetation, soil, clay, and synthetic liners 
designed to prevent water from reaching the wastes and causing them to 
migrate through the soil. DOE is also implementing controls, such as 
perimeter fencing, to prevent animal intrusion and control human access 
to the burial sites. DOE officials, in conjunction with the federal and 
state environmental agencies, decided to contain the buried wastes in 
place after concluding that it would be as safe or safer for workers 
and the environment and less costly than removing the wastes from the 
ground. Federal and state environmental agencies agreed with DOE's 
decisions. DOE finished constructing the barriers at Oak Ridge in 
September 2006 and expects to complete the barrier at Savannah River by 
summer 2007. In contrast, at the other three sites--the Idaho National 
Laboratory, the Hanford Site, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory-- 
where about 90 percent of DOE's transuranic wastes are buried, DOE is 
in varying stages of investigating cleanup options. A federal district 
court ruled in May 2006 that a 1995 agreement between DOE and Idaho 
requires DOE to remove all of the stored and buried transuranic wastes 
at the Idaho site. DOE has appealed this ruling, and, as an interim 
action, is removing a small amount of transuranic wastes from the site. 
In the meantime, DOE is evaluating cleanup options for the site and 
expects to select a cleanup approach by 2009. At Los Alamos and 
Hanford, DOE is still in the early stages of investigating waste areas 
and plans to evaluate cleanup options; a cleanup approach will be 
decided for these sites by 2007 and 2013, respectively. At Hanford, DOE 
has already agreed to remove a small amount of buried transuranic waste 
that threatens the Columbia River. In general, state environmental 
agencies have expressed concern that leaving the transuranic wastes in 
place at the three sites, even with additional controls to limit 
intrusion, may not adequately prevent the buried contaminants from 
spreading to the environment in the long term. How much, if any, buried 
transuranic wastes will eventually be removed from these sites is 
undetermined, and final decisions are years away. 

DOE's preliminary estimate of the cost to address the five waste sites 
where transuranic wastes are buried is about $1.6 billion (in fiscal 
year 2006 dollars), but this estimate will likely increase 
substantially for two principal reasons. First, DOE's estimate reflects 
the costs of leaving most of the waste in place under engineered 
barriers, as DOE is doing at Savannah River and Oak Ridge. This is 
typically the least expensive approach for addressing buried waste. 
However, if DOE is required by EPA or state environmental agencies to 
remove substantial portions of these wastes, costs are likely to 
increase dramatically. For example, at Idaho, where DOE and the state 
disagree over the extent to which DOE must remove buried transuranic 
wastes, preliminary DOE cost estimate indicates that removing all of 
the transuranic wastes would increase costs from about $1 billion to 
about $8.2 billion. Second, DOE's estimate excludes unknown costs, such 
as the cost of disposing wastes off-site, if necessary. For example, 
some wastes scheduled for exhumation may not meet the waste acceptance 
criteria established for on-site disposal facilities and may have to be 
packaged and transported elsewhere, which would increase costs. 
According to DOE's Inspector General, the $113 million estimate to 
remove transuranic wastes buried near the Columbia River at Hanford 
could triple once options and costs for disposal are fully evaluated. 
As DOE moves these projects forward and further evaluates the risks, 
benefits, and costs of various cleanup options, its project management 
policies require it to revise these cost estimates to improve their 
reliability. Thus, we are not making recommendations at this time. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOE for its review and comment. 
Overall, DOE generally agreed with our findings. However, with regard 
to the volume of transuranic wastes intended for disposal at WIPP, DOE 
stated that it regularly adjusts its forecasts and does not currently 
project that waste volumes will exceed WIPP capacity. While we agree 
that DOE's current projections do not indicate WIPP capacity will fall 
short of future requirements, cleanup decisions are still pending at 
the Hanford Site and the Idaho National Laboratory, which together 
comprise the bulk of DOE's total inventory of buried transuranic 
wastes. If substantial portions of the transuranic wastes at these 
sites must be exhumed and disposed of off-site, WIPP's authorized 
capacity may be insufficient. DOE also provided technical 
clarifications, which we have incorporated in this report as 
appropriate. 

Background: 

DOE's current and former nuclear weapons complex includes dozens of 
sites nationwide containing nuclear reactors, chemical processing 
buildings, plants, laboratories, and maintenance facilities that 
manufactured thousands of nuclear warheads and together conducted more 
than one thousand nuclear explosion tests. The environmental legacy of 
nuclear weapons production includes contaminated buildings, soils, 
water resources, and large volumes of radioactive and hazardous wastes 
that require treatment, stabilization to prevent migration, and 
disposal. DOE estimated in 2006, that the future cost to clean up, 
dispose, and provide long-term oversight of all wastes will be more 
than $230 billion over the next 75 years. 

Among the sites requiring environmental cleanup are the five sites 
addressed in this report. The Hanford Site is located on the arid east 
side of Washington state near Richland and adjacent to the Columbia 
River. The site was established to produce plutonium for nuclear 
weapons during World War II and, according to DOE, subsequently 
produced the majority of the nation's plutonium during the Cold War. 
The Idaho National Laboratory, located near Idaho Falls in the 
southeastern Idaho desert, was established in 1949 as the National 
Reactor Testing Station and was the site of the largest concentration 
of nuclear reactors--52--in the world. Los Alamos National Laboratory, 
located in a mountainous area of northern New Mexico, was established 
in 1943 and played a central role in researching the advanced 
technologies required for nuclear weapons manufacture. It is where the 
first atomic bomb was assembled. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory near 
Knoxville, Tenn., was established in 1943 to pilot the processing of 
uranium during World War II. The Savannah River Site, near Aiken, S.C., 
was built in the 1950s to produce basic materials needed in nuclear 
weapons manufacture, such as tritium and plutonium. 

DOE's Office of Environmental Management is responsible for cleaning up 
contamination left behind at these sites after decades of nuclear 
production and research. Environmental management officials at DOE 
field sites plan and oversee the cleanup activities at those sites, but 
the work itself is carried out primarily by private firms contracted by 
DOE. Officials from EPA, as well as environmental agency officials from 
the states in which DOE sites are located, enforce federal and state 
environmental laws and oversee and advise DOE on its cleanup efforts. 

Transuranic elements, which have an atomic weight greater than uranium, 
are man-made radioactive elements produced in nuclear reactors. 
Transuranic wastes are created when materials such as clothing and 
tools come into contact with plutonium and other transuranic elements 
during processing activities and cannot be reused for other purposes. 
They were first generated during operations to produce and recover 
plutonium for nuclear weapons manufacture and are still being produced 
in small quantities at laboratories where nuclear research continues 
today. Federal law currently defines transuranic waste as waste 
containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting transuranic 
elements (radiation) per gram and with half-lives greater than 20 years 
with certain exceptions.[Footnote 3] A half-life is the amount of time 
required for an element to decay by half, and nanocuries are a measure 
of radioactivity. Alpha-emitting radiation cannot pass through objects, 
including human skin, but is extremely dangerous if inhaled or 
ingested. Some buried wastes contaminated with transuranic elements may 
not meet the current legal definition of transuranic wastes. For ease 
of discussion in this report, however, we refer to these wastes as 
buried transuranic wastes. 

Cleanup Agreements Require DOE to Address Sites Where Transuranic 
Wastes Are Buried: 

The cleanup agreements DOE entered into with federal and state 
environmental agencies require DOE to investigate and take action as 
necessary to clean up sites where transuranic and other wastes were 
buried. The legal and regulatory framework governing management and 
disposal of transuranic wastes has changed significantly over the past 
50 years, particularly in 1970. Before 1970, there was no separate 
category for what is now defined as transuranic waste. Consequently, 
the federal government managed this waste as low-level radioactive 
waste, which it buried along with hazardous wastes in unlined, shallow 
pits and trenches, as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Typical Disposal of Transuranic and Other Wastes in Unlined 
Trench at the Hanford Site Prior to 1970: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOE. 

[End of figure] 

In 1970, in response to concerns that transuranic elements remain 
radioactive for an extremely long time and scientific research 
recommending deep geologic disposal for this waste, the Atomic Energy 
Commission--a DOE predecessor--directed sites that generated 
transuranic wastes to begin segregating them from other wastes and 
storing them in retrievable packages for an interim period of 20 years, 
pending disposal in a repository.[Footnote 4] In late 1979, Congress 
authorized DOE to develop a deep geologic repository in New Mexico to 
permanently dispose of transuranic wastes, including these stored 
transuranic wastes.[Footnote 5] In October 1992, Congress gave DOE 
management responsibility for the land, and gave EPA substantial 
responsibility for regulating many of DOE's activities at the 
repository.[Footnote 6] This repository, known as the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant (WIPP), began operating in the late 1990s and, in 1999, 
received its first shipment of transuranic wastes generated after the 
1970 directive to segregate and store such wastes. 

The Atomic Energy Commission's 1970 directive did not apply to 
transuranic wastes buried prior to 1970, and DOE considered these 
wastes permanently disposed. However, the sites where these wastes are 
buried have since become subject to CERCLA and other environmental 
laws. In particular, section 120 of CERCLA[Footnote 7] requires EPA to 
evaluate federal waste sites for possible inclusion on the National 
Priorities List. In 1989, EPA included on this list, the waste sites 
that contain most of DOE's buried transuranic wastes--Hanford, Idaho, 
Oak Ridge, and Savannah River.[Footnote 8] With this designation, 
CERCLA requires DOE to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination 
at these sites and determine what cleanup actions, if any, are 
necessary to protect human health and the environment. The buried 
transuranic waste sites at Los Alamos were evaluated but were not 
placed on the list. Cleanup of Los Alamos is being carried out under 
other authorities. At Los Alamos, the cleanup is being conducted under 
agreements with New Mexico--implementing the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA) and state law--and under DOE's 
Atomic Energy Act authority. The provisions of the Los Alamos cleanup 
agreements are similar to those under CERCLA requirements, including a 
schedule for conducting the cleanup. Los Alamos has multiple waste 
sites that contain buried transuranic wastes, and DOE's agreements with 
the state of New Mexico address each waste area separately. 

To carry out the cleanup of its National Priorities List sites under 
CERLCA, DOE must follow a process that includes extensive consultation 
between DOE, EPA, and state environmental agencies, as well as 
opportunities for public participation, to reach a decision on how DOE 
should clean up the respective site. The process begins with DOE 
consulting EPA and state environmental agencies and investigating the 
nature and extent of contamination at each site and undertaking a 
feasibility study to identify and evaluate possible approaches for 
cleaning up each site. After evaluating the approaches, DOE selects a 
"preferred alternative" that meets CERCLA requirements and presents, 
for public comment, a proposed plan explaining its preferred approach 
for cleaning up the wastes. DOE considers the public's comments and 
consults with EPA and the state environmental agency to determine a 
cleanup approach. 

Once the parties have reached agreement, the approach and the rationale 
for selecting it are published in a legally binding Record of Decision. 
In addition, DOE must enter into an interagency agreement with EPA that 
includes, among other things, a schedule for completing cleanup of the 
site. The environmental agency in the affected state is also a party to 
the agreements for Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. If 
the selected cleanup approach will involve leaving hazardous substances 
at the site, DOE must monitor the effectiveness of the approach and 
review the action every 5 years to determine whether any additional 
actions are necessary to protect human health and the 
environment.[Footnote 9] The provisions of the agreements, including 
the milestones, are legally enforceable and can be revised, as 
necessary, to incorporate new information and address changing 
conditions. As shown in table 1, DOE is currently scheduled to complete 
cleanup actions at all five sites by 2025. 

Table 1: Interagency Agreement Schedule for Addressing DOE Sites 
Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes: 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory[A]; 
Estimated volume of buried transuranic waste (in cubic meters): 7,450; 
Site investigation completed: 1997; 
Alternatives proposed: 1998; 
Remedy selected: 2000; 
Remedial action completed: 2006. 

Savannah River Site[A]; 
Estimated volume of buried transuranic waste (in cubic meters): 4,530; 
Site investigation completed: 1994; 
Alternatives proposed: 2001; 
Remedy selected: 2002; 
Remedial action completed: 2008. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory[B]; 
Estimated volume of buried transuranic waste (in cubic meters): 11,800; 
Site investigation completed: 2006; 
Alternatives proposed: 2007; 
Remedy selected: 2007; 
Remedial action completed: 2015. 

Hanford Site; 
Estimated volume of buried transuranic waste (in cubic meters): 66,700; 
Site investigation completed: 2011; 
Alternatives proposed: 2011; 
Remedy selected: 2013; 
Remedial action completed: 2024. 

Idaho National Laboratory; 
Estimated volume of buried transuranic waste (in cubic meters): 36,800; 
Site investigation completed: 2006; 
Alternatives proposed: 2007; 
Remedy selected: 2008; 
Remedial action completed: 2025. 

Source: Data provided by DOE. 

[A] For Oak Ridge and Savannah River, the dates for completing site 
investigation, proposing alternatives, selecting a remedy and 
completing remediation are actual, rather than scheduled. In addition, 
the remedy implemented at Oak Ridge is considered interim, until a 
final cleanup decision--expected in 2015--is reached. The final cleanup 
decision could involve additional remedial action to address 
transuranic wastes buried there. 

[B] The dates in the table represent the latest date by which Los 
Alamos is scheduled to complete cleanup of the final buried transuranic 
waste site, Material Disposal Area G. 

[End of table] 

DOE Is Containing Buried Transuranic Wastes in Place at Two Sites but 
Is Still Developing Cleanup Plans at the Largest Waste Sites: 

DOE has made cleanup decisions and is addressing transuranic wastes at 
Oak Ridge and Savannah River, but the department is still investigating 
cleanup options at the other three locations where most of DOE's 
transuranic wastes are buried. DOE plans to leave transuranic wastes 
buried at Oak Ridge and Savannah River in place under an engineered 
barrier and take additional measures to prevent intrusions that could 
expose humans and the environment to the buried contaminants. In 
contrast, DOE is still evaluating cleanup options at the Idaho National 
Laboratory, Hanford Site and Los Alamos National Laboratory, where 
about 90 percent of its buried transuranic wastes are located. The 
extent to which DOE will be required to retrieve buried wastes or will 
be allowed to manage these wastes in place is currently unknown, and 
cleanup decisions for the majority of these wastes are several years 
away. However, DOE has agreed to retrieve some of the wastes buried at 
Hanford and Idaho, because the wastes may threaten nearby surface 
waters and groundwater. 

Cleanup Agreements at Oak Ridge and Savannah River Call for Containing 
Buried Transuranic Wastes in Place: 

In accordance with CERCLA's requirements, DOE evaluated a number of 
approaches for addressing transuranic wastes buried at Oak Ridge and 
Savannah River. At both sites, DOE had originally disposed of the 
wastes in near-surface burial pits and trenches, often with other 
radioactive or hazardous wastes, including cesium, strontium, and 
volatile organic compounds. The two sites contain about 10 percent of 
the estimated 127,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes buried across 
the five DOE sites. DOE officials at both sites considered several 
cleanup options, ranging from managing the wastes in place to removing 
them from the ground and disposing of any exhumed transuranic wastes at 
WIPP. 

DOE, EPA, and state environmental agencies at both sites agreed that 
DOE should manage the buried wastes in place, because doing so would be 
equally or more protective of human health and the environment, and 
less costly than removing the wastes. Because DOE lacked adequate 
information on the specific location, condition, or concentration of 
the wastes in the burial sites, DOE and environmental agency officials 
said they were concerned that workers attempting to remove buried 
wastes would expose themselves to harmful contaminants or release 
contaminants into the environment. DOE and environmental agency 
officials told us that without adequate information on the location, 
condition or concentration of the wastes, efforts to mitigate the risks 
associated with retrieving the wastes would have been costly, requiring 
specialized enclosures for the waste areas, protective suits for 
workers, frequent rotation of workers to minimize their potential 
exposure, or other measures. According to these officials, attempts to 
determine the specific locations and other characteristics of the 
buried contaminants would likely expose workers and the environment to 
these same risks, because workers would be required to dig into the 
burial grounds in order to sample buried wastes. Furthermore, the 
officials were concerned that sampling buried wastes would not yield 
reliable information. 

As a result, DOE, EPA, and state environmental agencies at the two 
sites agreed that DOE should manage the wastes in place by constructing 
engineered barriers over the top of the burial grounds and implementing 
additional controls to limit access to the burial grounds and help 
ensure the barriers' effectiveness. The barriers' overall purpose is to 
prevent rainwater, animals, or other intrusions from entering the 
burial ground and potentially causing wastes to migrate into the air, 
groundwater, or nearby surface waters. Barriers are generally composed 
of multiple layers of earthen and synthetic materials (see fig. 2), 
depending on the site-specific conditions. Surface vegetation and soil 
function to absorb moisture, promote evaporation, and prevent water 
from filtering down to the wastes beneath the barrier. A diversion 
ditch carries surface water away from the waste site. Layers of rock, 
clay, and synthetic fabrics redirect moisture away from the buried 
wastes--and protect the wastes from burrowing animals. 

Figure 2: Figure 2. Example of an Engineered Barrier Constructed over a 
Burial Ground Containing Radioactive or Hazardous Wastes: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOE. 

Note: This figure depicts a barrier intended to remediate a waste site 
in a wet climate. Barriers constructed at arid sites may differ. 

[End of figure] 

DOE finished constructing the engineered barriers at Oak Ridge in 
September 2006 and expects to complete construction at Savannah River 
by summer 2007 (see fig. 3). The Oak Ridge barriers are considered an 
interim measure under CERCLA, in part because DOE and the state are 
still assessing the conditions under which long-lived radioactive 
wastes, including transuranic wastes, should be permanently disposed of 
in-place. DOE officials at Oak Ridge said they expect a final cleanup 
decision by 2015, at which time additional remedial actions to address 
the buried transuranic wastes could be required. 

In addition to the barriers, DOE plans to establish physical and long- 
term administrative controls at the two sites aimed at limiting access 
to areas where buried wastes were left in place. For example, DOE plans 
to install perimeter fencing and gates at both sites and restrict 
activities to maintenance of the engineered barriers. DOE also plans to 
prohibit certain types of land uses in these areas, such as residential 
use. It will transfer land-use restrictions at Savannah River to any 
future occupants, should the federal government decide to sell or lease 
land that includes the burial grounds. Furthermore, DOE officials from 
both sites will evaluate and repair the cap, as needed, and provide 
physical controls or sampling of the groundwater or surface waters in 
these areas for evidence of contamination. DOE conducts formal reviews 
of the barriers and related controls every 5 years. If EPA determines 
the measures are not fully effective, DOE may be required to take 
further actions, including removing some or all of the buried wastes. 

Figure 3: Aerial View of an Engineered Barrier under Construction at 
Oak Ridge: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: DOE. 

[End of figure] 

DOE Is Still Developing Cleanup Plans at the Three Locations Where Most 
Transuranic Wastes Are Buried, but Some Waste Removal Is Already Under 
Way: 

DOE is still evaluating cleanup options for most of the waste at the 
three remaining sites--the Hanford Site, the Idaho National Laboratory, 
and the Los Alamos National Laboratory--where about 90 percent of DOE's 
transuranic wastes are buried. 

Hanford Site: 

The Hanford Site contains about 66,700 cubic meters of buried 
transuranic wastes, or about 53 percent of DOE's total inventory of 
such wastes. These wastes were primarily disposed of in trenches in a 
272-acre area located in the central portion of the site and near the 
Columbia River. DOE is in the early stages of site investigations to 
determine the extent and type of contamination for most of its burial 
sites, and according to DOE, the department is scheduled to evaluate 
cleanup options and determine its preferred cleanup approach by 2013. 
However, DOE officials said that about 1,100 of the estimated 66,700 
cubic meters of buried transuranic wastes are located in another area 
of the Hanford site closer to the Columbia River than other sites. In 
2001, DOE agreed to remove the transuranic wastes buried in this area, 
as part of an interim effort to mitigate a plume of tritium, a 
radioactive (but not transuranic) contaminant that is migrating and 
could contaminate the Columbia River. Cleanup is scheduled for 
completion by 2012. Overall, although a cleanup decision for most of 
Hanford's buried transuranic wastes is years away, EPA and Washington 
state environmental officials have expressed concern that leaving much 
of the buried transuranic and other hazardous wastes in place under 
engineered barriers--even with additional controls to limit intrusion-
-may not provide adequate long-term protection for human health and the 
environment, and some removal of these wastes may be necessary. Citizen 
groups, such as the Hanford Advisory Council expressed similar concerns 
regarding the risks of leaving long-lived radioactive wastes, such as 
transuranic wastes, in place. 

Idaho National Laboratory: 

The Idaho National Laboratory contains about 36,800 cubic meters of 
buried transuranic wastes, or about 29 percent of DOE's inventory of 
such wastes. DOE officials at the Idaho site have prepared a draft 
feasibility study identifying possible alternatives for cleaning up the 
subsurface disposal area--a 97-acre area where transuranic, as well as 
other radioactive and hazardous wastes, are buried--which the 
department submitted to EPA and state environmental officials for 
review in March 2007. The alternatives described in the draft study 
ranged from containing most of the buried wastes in place under an 
engineered barrier to retrieving some or all of the wastes and 
permanently disposing of the transuranic portion at WIPP. DOE, EPA, and 
the state environmental agency are scheduled to document the selected 
cleanup approach in a record of decision by 2008. In 2005, DOE began 
removing some transuranic and other wastes buried in a 3-acre section 
of the 97-acre disposal area. DOE agreed to remove the wastes to 
prevent the contaminants from migrating to the Snake River aquifer, a 
drinking water source located about 580 feet below the disposal area. 

Although a cleanup approach has not yet been determined for most of the 
97-acre disposal area, DOE may be required to remove a significant 
portion of the buried transuranic wastes that remain. DOE and Idaho 
state officials have a long-standing disagreement regarding the amount 
of transuranic wastes that DOE had agreed to remove from the Idaho site 
under a 1995 settlement agreement with the state, in a case concerning 
shipments of spent nuclear fuel into Idaho. The state of Idaho 
subsequently sought to enforce terms of the agreement in court, and in 
2006, a federal district court ruled that DOE is obligated under the 
agreement to remove all the transuranic wastes at the Idaho National 
Laboratory site.[Footnote 10] DOE has appealed the district court's 
decision,[Footnote 11] but, in accordance with CERCLA requirements and 
the cleanup agreement for the site, the department is continuing to 
work with EPA and the state environmental agency to decide on a cleanup 
approach for most of the wastes buried at the site. 

Los Alamos National Laboratory: 

Los Alamos National Laboratory has about 12,000 cubic meters of buried 
transuranic wastes, or almost 10 percent of DOE's inventory of such 
wastes. These wastes, which also include hazardous wastes, such as 
volatile organic compounds, according to DOE, are in four disposal 
areas that comprise about 85 acres of the Los Alamos site. DOE is 
currently conducting site investigations to determine the extent and 
nature of contamination at the disposal areas and plans to evaluate 
cleanup options for those areas. 

Unlike the other four DOE sites containing buried transuranic wastes, 
Los Alamos was not included on the National Priorities List and, 
therefore, transuranic wastes buried there are not being addressed 
through the CERCLA process. Instead, cleanup of the buried waste sites 
is being carried out under a combination of other federal and state 
environmental laws and internal DOE orders. 

Hazardous wastes buried at Los Alamos are being addressed through RCRA. 
RCRA requires owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or 
dispose of hazardous wastes to obtain a permit from EPA, or an 
authorized state, specifying how the facilities will safely manage that 
waste. RCRA further authorizes EPA (or an authorized state) to require 
facilities holding or seeking permits to clean up contamination at 
those facilities. As provided under RCRA, EPA has authorized New Mexico 
to carry out a RCRA hazardous waste program under state law in lieu of 
the federal program. The cleanup process under the RCRA program is 
generally similar to CERCLA, including an investigation of contaminated 
areas and evaluation of cleanup options to select a cleanup approach. 

DOE will address radioactive wastes, which have been commingled with 
hazardous wastes at Los Alamos, under provisions of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, as amended, which allows DOE to direct the process of 
investigating and cleaning up radioactive contamination according to 
its own regulations and internal directives. DOE has an agreement with 
the state environmental agency that it would investigate its buried 
waste sites containing transuranic wastes by 2006 and complete any 
cleanup actions by 2015.[Footnote 12] 

Estimated Costs to Address Waste Disposal Areas in Which Transuranic 
Wastes Are Buried Will Likely Increase: 

DOE's preliminary cost estimates for addressing the five waste sites 
where transuranic and other hazardous wastes have been buried total 
about $1.6 billion (in fiscal year 2006 dollars). Because these wastes 
are commingled, the cost of addressing just the buried transuranic 
wastes cannot be separately determined. DOE's estimates are based on 
the costs of managing most of these wastes in place rather than 
removing them for off-site disposal. However, DOE cautions these 
estimates are preliminary and not entirely reliable because some wastes 
may need to be retrieved and disposed of off-site, which would increase 
costs substantially. In addition, some costs are not included because 
they are not yet known. As DOE moves these projects forward to further 
evaluate its various cleanup options, DOE's policies require it to 
revise cost estimates, accordingly. 

DOE Has Developed Cost Estimates to Address Geographic Areas Containing 
Transuranic and Other Waste: 

DOE has not separately estimated the costs to address only buried 
transuranic wastes, but estimates that the costs to address the burial 
grounds in which transuranic and other hazardous wastes have been 
disposed are about $1.6 billion through 2035. The specific costs 
associated with addressing only transuranic wastes cannot be determined 
because DOE's Office of Environmental Management, which is charged with 
cleaning up the disposal areas that include transuranic wastes, defines 
cleanup projects by geographic waste disposal areas, rather than by 
contaminant types. This is because many types of wastes and 
contaminants were disposed together in a specific geographic area; and 
in general, the Office of Environmental Management intends to address 
various wastes buried in each geographic disposal area as a group. The 
estimates to address the burial grounds reflect the "lifecycle" of each 
project--that is the total estimated expenditures for all aspects of 
managing a cleanup project from start to finish. These cost estimates 
are reported in DOE's annual budget request to the Congress and 
comprise a portion of DOE's environmental liabilities estimate included 
in its annual financial statement. 

As shown in table 2, DOE's estimated lifecycle baseline costs to 
address the burial grounds containing transuranic wastes range from $36 
million at the Savannah River Site--where officials are in the final 
stages of completing construction of a cap to contain the wastes--to $1 
billion at the Idaho National Laboratory, where DOE has begun to remove 
selected wastes for disposal off-site, but is still evaluating options 
to address most of the remaining buried waste. 

Table 2: Summary of DOE Estimated Lifecycle Costs to Address Disposal 
Areas Containing Buried Transuranic and Other Hazardous Wastes: 

In constant 2006 dollars. 

Location: Oak Ridge Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN; 
Total waste disposal area containing transuranic wastes (in acres): 
140; 
Estimated total lifecycle cost to address disposal areas containing 
transuranic wastes (in millions of dollars)[A]: $90.3[B]; 
Remedy assumed by DOE for cost estimation purposes: Surface cap and 
land use controls; 
Year cleanup action will be completed: 2006; 
Estimated percent of total transuranic waste volume buried at each 
location: 6. 

Location: Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC; 
Total waste disposal area containing transuranic wastes (in acres): 76; 
Estimated total lifecycle cost to address disposal areas containing 
transuranic wastes (in millions of dollars)[A]: 36.1; 
Remedy assumed by DOE for cost estimation purposes: Surface cap and 
institutional controls; 
Year cleanup action will be completed: 2008; 
Estimated percent of total transuranic waste volume buried at each 
location: 4. 

Location: Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID; 
Total waste disposal area containing transuranic wastes (in acres): 
97[C]; 
Estimated total lifecycle cost to address disposal areas containing 
transuranic wastes (in millions of dollars)[A]: 1,027.4; 
Remedy assumed by DOE for cost estimation purposes: Retrieval of 
hazardous and radioactive wastes from targeted 3-acre area, surface 
cap, organic vapor extraction, institutional controls; 
Year cleanup action will be completed: 2025; 
Estimated percent of total transuranic waste volume buried at each 
location: 29. 

Location: Hanford Site, Richland, WA; 
Total waste disposal area containing transuranic wastes (in acres): 
272; 
Estimated total lifecycle cost to address disposal areas containing 
transuranic wastes (in millions of dollars)[A]: 320[D]; 
Remedy assumed by DOE for cost estimation purposes: Retrieval of some 
wastes from targeted 13-acre area, surface capping, and institutional 
controls; 
Year cleanup action will be completed: 2035[D]; 
Estimated percent of total transuranic waste volume buried at each 
location: 52. 

Location: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM; 
Total waste disposal area containing transuranic wastes (in acres): 85; 
Estimated total lifecycle cost to address disposal areas containing 
transuranic wastes (in millions of dollars)[A]: 113.9; 
Remedy assumed by DOE for cost estimation purposes: Surface cap 
designed for arid conditions and institutional controls; 
Year cleanup action will be completed: 2015; 
Estimated percent of total transuranic waste volume buried at each 
location: 9. 

Total; 
Total waste disposal area containing transuranic wastes (in acres): 
670; 
Estimated total lifecycle cost to address disposal areas containing 
transuranic wastes (in millions of dollars)[A]: $1,587.7; 
Remedy assumed by DOE for cost estimation purposes: [Empty]; 
Year cleanup action will be completed: [Empty]; 
Estimated percent of total transuranic waste volume buried at each 
location: 100. 

Source: Data provided by DOE. 

[A] Costs largely exclude those associated with long-term oversight of 
the waste site, which are costs that will be assumed by the long-term 
steward, rather than the Office of Environmental Management. Such costs 
are included, however, as part of the DOE estimate for environmental 
liabilities reported to the Congress, and elsewhere. See A Report to 
Congress on Long-Term Stewardship, DOE/EM-0563, January 2001. 

[B] Cleanup has been completed at an actual cost of $90.3 million. 

[C] Only 17 acres of the 97-acre burial site at Idaho is suspected of 
containing transuranic wastes. 

[D] Cleanup is scheduled to be completed before 2025. This date is when 
the Office of Environmental Management will transfer final control of 
the property to the long-term steward. Cost estimate includes 
maintenance and monitoring of the buried waste sites until 2035. 

[End of table] 

Cost Estimates Are Preliminary and Likely Understate the Actual Cost of 
Addressing Buried Wastes: 

DOE's lifecycle cost estimates for addressing buried waste sites are 
preliminary because DOE is still evaluating and choosing cleanup 
options for the majority of its buried waste, and some of the probable 
costs associated with cleanup efforts are currently unknown. DOE has 
stated that it is only 50 percent confident that its lifecycle 
estimates accurately reflect the costs of addressing buried waste 
sites. DOE's estimates will likely increase, perhaps substantially, for 
several reasons. 

First, the estimates are based upon treatment and remedy assumptions 
that may be different from the final cleanup decision. The estimates 
are based on DOE's assumption that it will manage most of the buried 
wastes in place under engineered barriers and will monitor these 
barriers' effectiveness for as long as necessary to ensure protection 
of human health and the environment. This is typically the lowest-cost 
approach for addressing buried waste. DOE cost estimates are 
preliminary until an actual cleanup decision has been reached, at which 
time the cost estimates are revised to reflect that decision. If DOE is 
required to retrieve substantial portions of the buried transuranic 
wastes and dispose of it off-site at WIPP or elsewhere, costs could 
increase dramatically. For example if DOE must retrieve all the buried 
transuranic from the Idaho National Laboratory site, the department 
estimates that costs would increase from about $1 billion to about $8.2 
billion. According to DOE, the substantially higher costs are the 
result of activities to excavate wastes and the associated construction 
and operation of new facilities to treat and dispose of formerly buried 
wastes and new wastes created by the retrieval process. 

Second, the authorized capacity of the WIPP is currently insufficient 
to allow emplacement of large volumes of buried transuranic wastes 
beyond those being exhumed at the Idaho site. Specifically, WIPP is 
statutorily authorized to receive a maximum of 175,600 cubic meters of 
transuranic wastes. The majority of that capacity has been reserved for 
about 108,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes that were generated 
and placed in storage at various DOE sites after 1970 and had not yet 
been emplaced at WIPP as of 2002, the most recent year for which data 
are available. About 8,000 cubic meters of waste had already been 
emplaced at WIPP by 2002. Wastes DOE has agreed to exhume from the 
Idaho National Laboratory are expected to consume another 17,000 cubic 
meters of WIPP capacity. In addition, DOE expects to generate about 
17,000 cubic meters of additional transuranic wastes from future 
nuclear research and waste cleanup activities, and these wastes also 
are intended for disposal at WIPP. In total, DOE estimates that stored 
wastes, newly generated wastes and the wastes being exhumed currently 
at Idaho together will consume about 150,000 cubic meters of WIPP's 
authorized capacity, leaving only about 25,600 cubic meters for 
disposal of other transuranic wastes. DOE has estimated that if current 
plans to manage most wastes in place change and buried transuranic 
wastes across the weapons complex must be exhumed and disposed of off- 
site, up to 85,000 additional cubic meters could potentially require 
disposal at the WIPP. Developing alternative disposal paths for the 
estimated 60,000 cubic meters of transuranic wastes exceeding current 
WIPP capacity could further increase costs. 

Third, other assumptions DOE has incorporated into its cost estimates 
may also be incorrect, causing DOE's cost estimates to increase. For 
example, DOE's preliminary cost estimates assume that installing a 
barrier over one of the Los Alamos burial grounds will safely contain 
buried wastes. However, DOE reports that if further analysis shows this 
assumption is incorrect and a more complex solution, such as grouting 
or vitrification is required, then cost estimates would increase 
significantly. Grouting is a process that uses concrete to bind wastes 
together and impede their migration through soil. Vitrification 
immobilizes the wastes in glass. At two other locations, DOE has 
assumed that federal and state regulators will not require further 
characterization or excavation. However, if additional characterization 
is required, DOE reports that costs could increase. 

Finally, DOE has not included in its estimate some probable cost 
amounts that are currently unknown. For example, at DOE's Hanford site, 
highly radioactive and hazardous wastes were buried under 10 to15 feet 
of earth in vertical pipes and other containers at a site that is near 
the Columbia River. DOE has reported that the lifecycle cost to remove 
these wastes is about $113 million. However, according to DOE's 
Inspector General, this estimate does not include all potential costs 
to store, monitor, and dispose of this waste once it has been removed, 
which could increase the cost to more than $300 million.[Footnote 13] 
According to DOE officials, DOE had not yet evaluated methods for 
retrieving and disposing of the waste and, as a result, the costs for 
these actions were unknown. In addition, both Hanford and the Idaho 
National Laboratory lifecycle cost estimates exclude administrative 
costs and management fees that will eventually be negotiated with the 
private firms contracted to manage the cleanup effort. Since contracts 
have not yet been awarded for much of the buried waste cleanup, those 
costs have yet to be determined. 

As DOE moves forward to further evaluate the risks, benefits, and costs 
of various buried waste cleanup options, DOE's cost estimating and 
project management policies expect staff to refine the 
estimates.[Footnote 14]According to DOE guidance, the cost uncertainty 
is greatest during the period that site investigations and evaluations 
of cleanup options are being conducted. Typically, DOE includes what it 
calls an "unfunded contingency" in its lifecycle estimates to account 
for unanticipated future events, but officials said they do not include 
the contingency at a project level that includes buried waste cleanup 
estimates. DOE expects cost estimates to become somewhat more accurate 
during the design phase of a project and to become substantially more 
accurate once a cleanup remedy has been chosen and construction has 
been authorized. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the DOE for its review and 
comment. In its comments, the department generally agreed with our 
report. The department agreed that uncertainties surround the 
disposition of buried transuranic wastes and that the volume of such 
wastes intended for WIPP could increase. However, the department stated 
that EPA's recertification process for WIPP, which occurs every 5 
years, includes a forecast of waste disposal volumes and that current 
projections do not indicate insufficient WIPP capacity. The department 
further stated that it is prepared to manage the uncertainties 
regarding the future disposition of these wastes. While we agree that 
current projections do not indicate WIPP capacity will fall short of 
future requirements, at the time of our review, cleanup decisions were 
still pending at the Hanford Site and the Idaho National Laboratory. 
These two sites comprise over 80 percent of DOE's total estimated 
inventory of buried transuranic wastes and it is unclear how much of 
these buried wastes ultimately must be exhumed. As we stated in our 
report, if substantial volumes of the transuranic wastes at these sites 
must be exhumed and disposed of off-site, WIPP's authorized capacity 
could be inadequate. 

DOE provided additional technical comments, including clarifications on 
terminology and ongoing litigation at the Idaho National Laboratory. We 
incorporated these clarifications as appropriate. DOE's comments are 
presented in appendix II. 

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy, and we 
also will make copies available to others on request. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. 

If you, or your staff, have any questions about this report or need 
additional information, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or 
cosgrovej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this 
report. Other staff contributing to this report can be found in 
appendix III. 

Signed by: 

James Cosgrove: 
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To conduct our work, we visited buried waste landfills and stored waste 
facilities, and we met with local Department of Energy (DOE) officials 
at each of DOE's five largest transuranic waste burial sites--the 
Hanford Site, the Idaho National Laboratory, the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, the Savannah River Site, and the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory. We also reviewed studies and scientific reports by DOE and 
other federal agencies and the National Academy of Sciences on the 
storage and disposition of transuranic wastes, and interviewed experts 
in the field. 

To determine the extent to which legal requirements and policies govern 
DOE's efforts to address buried transuranic wastes, we reviewed the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA), the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE regulations 
and guidance concerning radioactive and hazardous wastes. We also 
reviewed the Federal Facility Agreements and Orders between DOE, EPA, 
and each state with a site where DOE has buried transuranic wastes, as 
well as a May 2006 federal district court decision interpreting an 
agreement between DOE and the state of Idaho concerning DOE's 
obligation to remove buried transuranic wastes from the Idaho National 
Laboratory site. To better understand the implementation of these laws, 
regulations, policies, and agreements at DOE sites, we interviewed 
state environmental regulatory officials and EPA officials that oversee 
each of the buried waste locations. We did not interview EPA officials 
in New Mexico because EPA has authorized the state of New Mexico to 
carry out a state RCRA program under state law in lieu of the federal 
program. 

To determine how DOE plans to address buried waste at each of its 
sites, we reviewed the planning documents DOE has prepared to comply 
with CERCLA or RCRA requirements, feasibility studies describing 
remediation alternatives, records of decision for sites that have 
selected a remedy for buried waste, and internal DOE reports regarding 
buried transuranic wastes, and interviewed the project managers and 
engineers responsible for overseeing the remediation of each buried 
waste site. 

To determine DOE's estimated costs for addressing disposal sites 
containing buried transuranic wastes and to evaluate the accuracy of 
those estimates, we analyzed each field location's fiscal year 2006 
lifecycle baseline estimates for specific projects that included 
cleaning up previously disposed transuranic wastes. Because DOE has 
generally defined cleanup projects by geographic waste disposal areas 
rather than by waste types, we were unable to determine the specific 
costs associated with addressing only transuranic wastes. To better 
understand the lifecycle cost estimates, we reviewed DOE cost 
estimating and project management guidance and interviewed officials 
responsible for preparing and reporting cost estimates to DOE. All cost 
estimates in this report are in constant 2006 dollars. 

In reporting the volumes of transuranic wastes buried at DOE sites, we 
relied on estimates made by DOE in 1999 and reported in 2000, the most 
recent available comprehensive inventory of such wastes.[Footnote 15] 
In reporting the inventory of buried transuranic wastes, we included 
wastes buried at both shallow depths (less than 100 feet) and 
intermediate depths (between 100 and 1,000 feet). In addition, we 
adjusted the buried waste inventory reported for Los Alamos and Hanford 
because officials there had subsequently developed more accurate 
inventory data that showed a somewhat lower volume than had been 
reported in 2000. At other locations, DOE officials said they believed 
the 2000 report reflected the most accurate data available. With regard 
to the inventory of stored transuranic wastes reported in 2000, we used 
data from a 2001 DOE report.[Footnote 16] Some of that waste has now 
been disposed of permanently at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) 
in New Mexico. The inventory of the remaining volume of transuranic 
wastes currently in storage at DOE sites continues to change because of 
ongoing shipments to WIPP for permanent disposal and was not available 
from DOE. 

We performed our work between May 2006 and May 2007 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

June 4, 2007: 

Mr. James Cosgrove: 
Acting Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Cosgrove: 

This letter provides the Department of Energy's (DOE) comments on your 
draft report entitled Nuclear Waste: Plans for Addressing Most Buried 
Transuranic Wastes Are Not Final and Preliminary Cost Estimates Will 
Likely Increase (GAO-07-761). We are pleased that the Government 
Accountability Office has no recommendations on DOE's policy framework 
for making site-specific, risk-informed decisions about remediation of 
buried transuranic-contaminated wastes. 

We agree there are uncertainties associated with DOE's plans for buried 
transuranic-contaminated wastes. As you note, future decisions could 
increase the volume of transuranic wastes that would have to be 
disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. 
However, we update our forecasts and reapply every five years to the 
Environmental Protection Agency for WIPP certification. Our latest 
certification application indicates we do not currently project that 
waste volumes would exceed WIPP's capacity. We believe our existing 
planning processes are sufficient to manage this uncertainty. 

The enclosure provides a markup of the draft report, to better 
distinguish pre-1970 buried waste from post-1970 wastes, and to clarify 
litigation and cleanup activities at the Idaho National Laboratory. If 
you have any questions, please contact Mr. Frank Marcinowski, Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance, at (202) 586-0370. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Charles E. Anderson (Acting for) 
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management: 

Enclosure: 

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Contact Information and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

James Cosgrove, (202) 512-3841 Gene Aloise, (202) 512-3841: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Bill Swick, Assistant 
Director; Doreen Feldman; Michael Meleady; Mehrzad Nadji; James Noel; 
Alison O'Neill; Jeff Rueckhaus; and Ginny Vanderlinde made key 
contributions to this report. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] This report refers to wastes that were generated after 1970 and 
subsequently stored for deep geologic disposal at WIPP as "stored" 
transuranic wastes. At some locations, these stored wastes were placed 
in containers and then buried underground. 

[2] Transuranic waste was first identified as a separate waste category 
in 1970, and its original statutory definition was revised in 1982. For 
ease of discussion, this report refers to all wastes contaminated with 
transuranic elements as transuranic wastes, regardless when it was 
generated or disposed or whether it meets the current statutory 
definition. Transuranic wastes that were disposed of at shallow or 
intermediate depths before issuance and implementation of a 1970 
directive prohibiting this practice are referred to as "buried 
transuranic wastes." 

[3] The definition of transuranic waste specifically excludes (1) high- 
level radioactive waste; (2) waste that DOE has determined with the 
concurrence of EPA, does not need the degree of isolation required by 
the disposal regulations; or (3) waste that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has approved for disposal on a case by case basis in 
accordance with 10 C.F.R. part 61. See Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 
Withdrawal Act, Pub. L.No. 102-579, § 2(20), 106 Stat. 4777-79 (1992). 

[4] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Immediate Action Directive, IAD No. 
0511-21, March 20, 1970. 

[5] Department of Energy National Security and Military Applications of 
Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-164, 93 Stat. 
1259, 1265 (1979). 

[6] Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Pub. L. No. 102- 
579, 106 Stat. 4777 (1992), as amended by the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Plant Land Withdrawal Amendment Act, Pub. L. No. 104-201, 110 Stat. 
2851 (1996). 

[7] 42 U.S.C. § 9620. 

[8] See 54 Fed. Reg. 48184 (Nov. 21, 1989). 

[9] CERCLA, § 121(c), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c). Under Executive Order 12580, 
DOE is responsible for conducting 5-year reviews at DOE sites. 

[10] Public Service Company of Colorado v. Kempthorne, CV 91-035-S-EJL 
(D. Idaho, May 25, 2006). The court stated that unless something is 
encountered that would prohibit its removal, the 1995 agreement 
obligates the United States to remove all transuranic wastes, with the 
buried transuranic waste being on a time schedule dictated by CERCLA 
and the Federal Facility Agreement and Compliance Order. The court 
further stated that should EPA ultimately conclude that removal of 
certain waste is too dangerous and Idaho disagrees, the court would 
necessarily have to resolve that dispute and retained jurisdiction to 
do so. 

[11] United States v. Andrus, No. 06-35661 (9th Cir. filed July 24, 
2006). 

[12] Radionuclides are regulated under DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation 
Protection of the Public and the Environment, and DOE Order 435.1, 
Radioactive Waste Management. 

[13] U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, 
Remediation of the Waste Burial Grounds at the Hanford Site, 
Washington, D.C.: October 2006; DOE/IG-0743. 

[14] DOE G 430.1-1, Cost Estimating Guide; DOE G 430.1-1X, Cost 
Estimating Guide for Program and Project Management. 

[15] Department of Energy, Buried Contaminated Transuranic Waste 
Information for U.S. Department of Energy Facilities, June 2000. 

[16] Department of Energy, Summary Data on the Radioactive Waste, Spent 
Nuclear Fuel and Contaminated Media Managed by the U.S. Department of 
Energy, April 2001. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: