greatest likelihood to delay the project's schedule since other siting activities depend upon approved guidelines. --An official with the Nevada Department of Minerals told us --The deputy manager of Battelle's Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, a DOE contractor, said that all potential salt repository sites are located on private land. DOE's acquisition of or access to this private land could involve litigation, including condemnation proceedings. According to an OCRWM official, such proceedings may be needed during site characterization to allow DOE to drill boreholes or exploratory shafts on private lands. Quality of some siting work has been questioned Because of differences in the data available on each site and differences in the review processes DOE is using to evaluate these data, DOE may be subject to other challenges once its site characterization work is completed. Such challenges have the potential to delay the program's schedule. DOE siting work differs among sites DOE recognizes that only after site characterization will complete data be available for site evaluations. Before site characterization, some site data will be less detailed because testing was at various stages when NWPA was passed. Sites where testing has been ongoing for many years, such as the Washington and Nevada sites, will have more detailed data. (See table on the next page.) For example, a conceptual site-specific design for a basalt repository at the Hanford Reservation in Washington was completed in 1983, but similar designs have not been prepared for the other sites. DOE believes that NWPA (sec. 112(b)(1) (E) (ii)) recognizes that data may be insufficient to determine whether a site complies with all of the siting guidelines at the time of site nomination. Accordingly, DOE plans much more rigorous analyses during site characterization to equalize its technical data before a final repository site recommendation is made. However, the adequacy of DOE's site characterization work has already been challenged at one site, which raises the possibility that challenges could occur at other sites. *The activities shown in this table are not necessarily directly comparable. For example, DOE has reported that boreholes have been sunk at six sites. However, several of these boreholes have been sunk in the general area of the sites, while at other sites the holes were in the specific location identified for a repository. Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOE, February 21, 1984, in letter to Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, House Committee on Energy and Commerce. DOE has encountered criticism on its more detailed site characterization work at the Hanford Reservation. The quality of this work was the subject of oversight hearings by the House Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (May 26, 1983). Officials from the NRC, Geological Survey, and Washington State told us that, on the basis of their reviews of the 1982 DOE basalt site characterization report, 12 DOE'S Contractor was too optimistic in analyzing available data. 12Because siting work was so advanced at Hanford, some site characterization had been done prior to NWPA. However, the act requires additional data which would be included as part of the site characterization plan under NWPA, should Hanford be recommended as one of the three sites for further evaluation. Specifically, the contractor was too optimistic regarding the speed with which ground water moves through basalt and the number of fractures in the basalt. NRC and Geological Survey have recommended additional technical work that the contractor must do to improve the basalt characterization work at Hanford. The contractor has reviewed the recommendations and has initiated further work. DOE told us that completion of this work will not delay the basalt project. Different peer review processes used to judge quality of DOE siting work Throughout its past nuclear waste activities, DOE provided opportunities for peer review and comment. These peer review groups were established to review activities on a program-wide basis and to review activities at certain sites in order to add technical objectivity and credibility to DOE's repository development program. The current waste management program has no consistent peer review process which could subject DOE's technical analyses to future challenges and revisions, especially given states' concerns about DOE's application of the siting guidelines. DOE officials told us that its field offices responsible for identifying potential sites for the first repository have different peer review processes. For example: --Because DOE's Basalt Waste Isolation Project Office does --The director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigation Office said that the Geological Survey reviews and supports all geological work done by that Office. At one time, the Office had a peer review group, but it has not been active for the past year. The Office is trying to reestablish the peer review group. --The salt site subcontractors conduct their own internal The National Research Council issued a report in 1983 which recommended that DOE institute a more deliberate overall technical review of its waste disposal program. 13 On November 29, 1983, DOE informed us that it is still considering the extent of future review needed and does not expect to have implemented the Council's recommendation until late 1984. A headquartersinitiated review group is currently evaluating all site projects to assure that each project is acquiring appropriate data. expects that additional peer review groups will result from this work. Final site recommendation subject to state disapproval DOE NWPA (sec. 116 and 118) provides that the governor or legislature of a state where the recommended repository site is proposed to be located, or an affected Indian tribe on whose reservation the repository is proposed to be located, may disapprove of such a designation by submitting a disapproval notice to the Congress. If the Congress, within 90 calendar days of continuous session after receipt of such notice, does not pass a resolution specifically approving this site, the site is deemed disapproved and the President must recommend another site within 1 year. Obviously, such an event would delay construction of the repository, resulting in considerable program delay and additional cost. Some states being considered for the first repository have taken the position that they do not want to be chosen for the repository's location because of the potential economic, environmental, health, and safety impacts associated with a repository. For example, the Governor of Nevada has testified during local hearings on the siting guidelines that he is absolutely opposed to having a repository in his state. He said that he would exercise his disapproval authority to block the siting of a repository in Nevada. DOE recognizes that a site recommended for a repository could be rejected by affected states, Indian tribes, the President, or the Congress. DOE has stated it will make every effort to conduct site evaluation and selection activities in such a manner as to give no cause for rejection of the site it selects. 13A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1983. CHAPTER 3 FINANCING THE COST OF THE GEOLOGIC WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 places the responsibility for paying the government's cost for geologic disposal of highly radioactive materials on the generator or owner of the material. To ensure that this objective is accomplished, the act called for the immediate establishment of a special trust fund within the U.S. Treasury, called the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), to separately account for receipts and expenditures for authorized disposal activities (secs. 302(c) and (d)). The act also provided for DOE, in calendar year 1983, to --enter into contracts by June 30, 1983, with the nation's --establish procedures by July 7, 1983, for the collection and payment of fees for DOE services (sec. 302(a) (4)). DOE entered into the contracts and established fee collection procedures by the specified deadline dates. These actions represent a major step toward providing NWF an assured source of revenues and placing the financing responsibility on the generator or owner of highly radioactive materials. On the other hand, we believe DOE faces a difficult challenge in assuring an adequate source of revenues for the program in the long term. The major source of uncertainty arises from the length of time, about five decades, over which DOE is attempting to project program revenues and costs. Independent of the uncertainty in long-term program revenues, we believe that, from a sound financial management and equity standpoint, DOE should fully evaluate ways to more promptly collect NWF fees from all anticipated users of DOE's repository services. While DOE has established procedures for the collection and payment of fees for the spent fuel owned by the nation's utilities and other commercial owners, DOE has not done so for the high-level wastes (1) produced by DOE defense programs (which account for about 97.5 percent of the reprocessed high-level wastes in the United States) and (2) maintained by New York State (which accounts for the remaining 2.5 percent). On the basis of our analysis of DOE's fee collection procedures or plans, we found that DOE may be able to accelerate millions of dollars in payments from these anticipated repository users. |