Public Policy

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the committee’s continued active oversight of issues relating to civilian use of nuclear technologies and welcome the opportunity to provide the industry’s perspective on issues raised in the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO’s) June 2004 Report on low-level radioactive waste.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) represents 260 corporate members in 13 countries. They include companies that operate nuclear power plants, design and engineering firms, fuel suppliers and service companies, companies that manage and dispose of low-level radioactive waste, companies involved in nuclear medicine and nuclear industrial applications, radionuclide and radiopharmaceutical companies, universities and research laboratories, and labor unions.

Nuclear technologies offer significant benefits to society. America’s nuclear power plants produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. More than 30 million medical procedures a year use nuclear technologies for diagnosis or therapy, accounting for about one in three hospital admissions. Critical industries use radioactive materials as power supplies, for making measurements and to analyze and test new components and devices. Low-level waste (LLW) is a normal industrial byproduct of these beneficial uses.

The GAO report on low-level waste (GAO-04-604) provides an excellent review and update of the situation on the availability of disposal sites for LLW. The report concludes that the availability is currently adequate, but that the situation could change in the future. As a result, we agree that Congress must remain actively involved in the oversight of the issue.

There are steps that should be taken now to facilitate effective oversight. For instance, we concur with the GAO recommendation that the Department of Energy should ensure that the Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) database contains accurate data. DOE should continue to disseminate the information from MIMS as the agency improves the system.

However, we disagree that it is necessary for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to report to Congress on LLW disposal and storage conditions to ensure that safe, reliable and cost-effective disposal is available. The NRC is a regulatory agency whose expertise and mission focus is on ensuring the safety and security of licensee activities through oversight and inspections. The NRC is not well-suited to study what amounts to future projections related to broad programmatic issues—a responsibility that could dilute the agency’s focus on safety and security.

Given that the GAO has studied LLW disposal twice in recent years (1999 and 2004) and has developed an excellent institutional capacity for the subject, we believe that Congress should—at an appropriate future time—request the GAO to perform an updated evaluation.

Low-level waste disposal is currently market-driven within the “compact” framework that Congress provided for in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act as amended in 1985. This framework allowed states to form regional compacts for managing their LLW. Producers of LLW have disposed of their waste safely and securely in several areas of the country. Washington, South Carolina and Utah have operating LLW disposal sites.

The Texas state legislature recently authorized the creation of two waste disposal facilities that will be licensed as one site. On Aug. 4, 2004, Waste Control Specialists LLC submitted a license application for a facility in Andrews County, Texas.

The resolution of two issues is essential with regard to the long-term disposal of the country’s LLW: to have adequate access to Class B and C disposal facilities and to address the possibility of a single site for Class A waste by 2008.¹ The market has time to respond to these developments, and we have strong reason to believe that it will.

If the market does not respond or if there are impediments that legislative changes to the Low-Level Waste Radioactive Policy Act could address, then it would be appropriate for this committee to consider action in close consultation with those industries that generate LLW and must address these disposal options.

Disposal of greater-than-Class-C waste is only a problem for decommissioning power plants and is (by law and regulation) tied to DOE actions. Most likely these actions will be linked to progress on the nation’s used nuclear fuel repository (for high-level radioactive waste) at Yucca Mountain, Nev., and should not be the focus of oversight on the LLW issue. Although disposal of greater-than-Class C waste is a separate issue, we recommend continued congressional oversight of DOE’s progress in this sector.

Finally, we encourage the committee to support initiatives permissible within the current legislative framework that will enable safe alternative means for LLW disposal. Two such initiatives include an NRC-proposed rulemaking on the safe disposition of solid radioactive material² and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking by the Environmental Protection Agency for the management and disposal of LLW.³

NEI looks forward to working with the committee to ensure that the management and disposal of LLW continues to protect public health and safety.

---

¹ Low-level radioactive wastes are categorized as Class A, B and C waste, depending on the concentration and type of radionuclides in the waste. Based on these criteria, Class A is the lowest rating, and Class C is the highest.

² Federal Register, “Rulemaking on Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials: Scoping Process for Environmental Issues and Notice of Workshop,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Feb. 28, 2003.

³ Federal Register, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: “Approaches to an Integrated Framework for Management and Disposal of Low-Activity Radioactive Waste: Request for Comment,” Nov. 18, 2003.