in fiscal year 1986 or 1987 if the President does not determine that use of a separate repository for such defense waste is required. (See pp. 49 to 52.) --For high-level waste maintained by New York State, DOE could seek prompt payments of funds held by the state for the care of such waste under contractual arrangements which pre-date the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. (See pp. 52 to 53.) Each method of accelerating payment, however, has obstacles or concerns that DOE would need to address. For example, DOE would need to decide what is an appropriate fee to charge for disposing of high-level wastes, seek appropriations to pay fees for disposing of defense high-level wastes, and amend its contractual agreements with utilities and New York State. (See pp. 43, 44, 48, 51, and 53.) GAO recommendations Given the potential for accelerating millions of dollars in payments into the Nuclear Waste Fund, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Energy evaluate ways to more promptly collect fees from all generators and owners of highly radioactive materials and to establish fees for disposing of high-level wastes. (See p. 53.) ESTABLISHING AN ORGANIZATION TO CARRY OUT DOE'S FUNCTIONS Calendar year 1983 was a difficult transition period for DOE's nuclear waste management program. DOE had to restructure its organizational responsibilities to put the Waste Office in place to carry out the various functions under the act. At the same time, DOE had to begin implementing the act's requirements. DOE formally activated the Waste Office as a permanent headquarters organization in October 1983. Until then, an interim project office was responsible for implementing the act's near-term requirements. In addition, the DOE Waste Office was headed by two different acting directors until the appointment of a permanent director in May 1984. (See pp. 55 to 62.) GAO found that under DOE's decentralized field management approach the DOE Waste Office lacks direct authority to control the field staffs that execute the program through a multitude of contractors. In this situation, GAO believes that the DOE Waste Office will need to pay particularly close attention to developing strong management controls over repository planning and execution, given the high cost of repository development, the tight development schedule, and DOE contractual commitments with nuclear-electric utilities. The DOE Waste Office recognizes the importance of this consideration and has taken actions to strengthen its controls over repository planning and execution. For example, beginning in fiscal year 1985, DOE will have integrated its financial accounting and budgeting system with its project management control system. This should result in the routine collection of more detailed cost data on program subactivities. (See pp. 63 to 66.) AGENCY COMMENTS DOE believes that the report presents a fair and balanced assessment of its progress in implementing the act. DOE commented that it is (1) in the process of developing an integrated program management system, (2) exploring alternatives to improve the program's revenue stream, and (3) studying GAO's recommendations and suggestions. The Department of the Treasury strongly supports applying commercial, rather than Treasury, interest rates to deferred payments of one-time fees. (See p. 54, app. VII, and app. VIII.) DOE and NRC also provided specific comments aimed at enhancing the accuracy and clarity of the report. Where appropriate, the report was revised to recognize their positions on certain matters. (See p. 14.) Also, GAO discussed its analysis of ways DOE may be able to accelerate payment of fees into the Nuclear Waste Fund with representatives of investor-owned nuclear utilities and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Utility representatives told GAO that utilities would oppose amending their contracts to require payment of fees on a monthly, rather than quarterly, basis. They stated that such an amendment would result in additional cost which would be passed on to utility customers. Description and location of highly radioactive materials requiring DOE'S EFFORTS TO LOCATE AN ACCEPTABLE SITE FOR DOE identified nine potentially acceptable sites for the first repository Completion of siting guidelines fulfills Future statutory deadlines for the siting of the first repository are not expected Actions that could further affect the FINANCING THE COST OF THE GEOLOGIC WASTE DOE entered into the mandated contracts DOE should fully evaluate ways to more promptly collect Nuclear Waste Fund fees ESTABLISHING A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION TO CARRY |