Alternative Means of Financing and Managing the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program

This report is in response to the directive of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and Water
Development that the Department of Energy (DOE) update a 1984 report of alternative means of financing and
managing (AMFM) the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) in the DOE. The
President’s FY 2002 budget also stated: “DOE will submit to Congress an updated report regarding alternative
approaches to finance and manage the program by June 30, 2001[.] DOE will identify in this report models of
effective organizations that might benefit the operation of its civilian program.” OCRWM contracted with
Booz·Allen & Hamilton, Inc. to conduct research on alternatives and received input from financial and
management experts.
This report acknowledges the views of the experts that the current funding mechanism is the highest priority
issue in need of immediate action and proposes specific near-term funding actions that could be implemented as
part of the FY 2003 budget process. Near-term management initiatives were also identified. OCRWM
reviewed the near-term management initiatives and decided to initiate implementation of five initiatives this year.
The report also addresses longer-term funding and management alternatives for further consideration after the
process for selecting the site for a permanent repository has been completed.
This report describes four near-term funding mechanisms that could remedy the limitations that are now imposed
on the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). The alternatives are to: (1) re-classify the NWF spending from a
discretionary account to a mandatory account; (2) re-classify the annual user fee from a mandatory receipt to a
discretionary offsetting collection; (3) establish a separate Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) discretionary
spending category for the repository construction period; and (4) request a lump sum appropriations for
construction.
Three longer-term management and funding alternatives were identified with the assumption that any action on
the longer-term management and funding alternatives would take place only after the national decision process
on site suitability has been completed. While all three alternatives have benefits, no decision has been made to
proceed to implement any of them. Further detailed analysis would be required on the specifics of the
alternatives’ application to OCRWM if a decision on the repository site is made and the site recommendation
process is completed.