Yucca Mountain
Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related Challenges Gao ID: GAO-11-847 September 16, 2011The future of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada--originally designated for permanent storage of nuclear waste--is uncertain. Since 1983, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars to evaluate the Yucca Mountain site for potential use as a nuclear waste repository. In February 2010, the President proposed eliminating funding for the project, and in March 2010, DOE filed a motion to withdraw its license application. Stakeholders--federal officials, state and local government officials, private companies, and others--have expressed interest in whether the site's characteristics are suitable for alternative uses. GAO was asked to examine alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site. This report examines: (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site; (2) stakeholders' proposed alternative uses, and experts' evaluations of them; and (3) challenges, if any, in pursuing alternative uses. We selected a nonprobability sample of experts that included experts affiliated with nationally recognized research organizations, universities, and national laboratories, and that did not represent or benefit from any of the stakeholders' proposed alternative uses of the site. Using a data collection instrument, we elicited comments from these experts on stakeholders' proposed uses. The alternative uses discussed in this report reflect the alternative uses these stakeholders proposed; they may not reflect all potential uses of the site. This report contains no recommendations. Interior generally agreed with our findings, while DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and NRC neither agreed nor disagreed.
The Yucca Mountain site has several geographical, structural, and geophysical characteristics that may be relevant in considering potential alternative uses. Geographically, the site spans a large land area in a remote part of Nevada and partially includes some of the lands of two adjacent highly-secure national security sites--the Air Force's Nevada Test and Training Range and DOE's Nevada National Security Site. The site's lands were historically under the control of three federal agencies: DOE, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Department of the Interior. The most notable structural features include two large tunnels--one about 5 miles long and 25 feet in diameter, and another 2 miles long that branches off of the main tunnel. Geophysically, the Yucca Mountain area is semiarid and has little surface water; is comprised of strong, very low permeability volcanic rock; and is located in an area with low levels of seismic activity. Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site; however, there was no broad consensus regarding the benefits and challenges of these uses among the experts we consulted. The alternative uses span five broad categories: (1) nuclear or radiological uses, such as locating a nuclear reprocessing complex at or near the site; (2) defense or homeland security activities, such as testing systems to detect and identify radioactive materials; (3) information technology uses, such as secure electronic data storage; (4) energy development or storage, such as using the site for renewable energy development; and (5) scientific research, such as geology or mining research. While some experts we contacted identified benefits of the site for certain uses, experts also noted that many of these proposed uses would be costly and may face significant challenges. Several experts also noted that Yucca Mountain's characteristics would not be critical to a number of the proposed uses, and that many could be undertaken elsewhere. Alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site face a number of legal and administrative challenges. First, DOE's withdrawal of its application to build a repository at Yucca Mountain is subject to continuing legal proceedings, and resolution of these proceedings could preclude or significantly delay alternative uses of the site. Second, potential litigation regarding mining claims may affect alternative uses of the site. Following the 2010 expiration of a land withdrawal order, 35 mining claims were recorded and processed by BLM. Although BLM declared these claims void in August 2011, their legitimacy could be litigated, which could delay or pose challenges to alternative uses of the site. Third, because control of the site is divided among three different federal agencies, potential alternative uses may face challenges related to management of the site's lands. Fourth, potential alternative uses of the site may be limited by national security activities that currently take place on adjacent lands. Fifth, as with any activity, proposed uses of the site will require the user to comply with applicable federal and state regulations.
GAO-11-847, Yucca Mountain: Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-847
entitled 'Yucca Mountain: Information on Alternative Uses of the Site
and Related Challenges' which was released on October 17, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate:
September 2011:
Yucca Mountain:
Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related Challenges:
GAO-11-847:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-847, a report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The future of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada”-originally
designated for permanent storage of nuclear waste-”is uncertain. Since
1983, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars to
evaluate the Yucca Mountain site for potential use as a nuclear waste
repository. In February 2010, the President proposed eliminating
funding for the project, and in March 2010, DOE filed a motion to
withdraw its license application. Stakeholders”-federal officials,
state and local government officials, private companies, and others––
have expressed interest in whether the site‘s characteristics are
suitable for alternative uses.
GAO was asked to examine alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site.
This report examines: (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain
site; (2) stakeholders‘ proposed alternative uses, and experts‘
evaluations of them; and (3) challenges, if any, in pursuing
alternative uses. We selected a nonprobability sample of experts that
included experts affiliated with nationally recognized research
organizations, universities, and national laboratories, and that did
not represent or benefit from any of the stakeholders‘ proposed
alternative uses of the site. Using a data collection instrument, we
elicited comments from these experts on stakeholders‘ proposed uses.
The alternative uses discussed in this report reflect the alternative
uses these stakeholders proposed; they may not reflect all potential
uses of the site. This report contains no recommendations. Interior
generally agreed with our findings, while DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and
NRC neither agreed nor disagreed.
What GAO Found:
The Yucca Mountain site has several geographical, structural, and
geophysical characteristics that may be relevant in considering
potential alternative uses. Geographically, the site spans a large
land area in a remote part of Nevada and partially includes some of
the lands of two adjacent highly-secure national security sites”the
Air Force‘s Nevada Test and Training Range and DOE‘s Nevada National
Security Site. The site‘s lands were historically under the control of
three federal agencies: DOE, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) under the Department of the Interior. The
most notable structural features include two large tunnels-”one about
5 miles long and 25 feet in diameter, and another 2 miles long that
branches off of the main tunnel. Geophysically, the Yucca Mountain
area is semiarid and has little surface water; is comprised of strong,
very low permeability volcanic rock; and is located in an area with
low levels of seismic activity.
Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca
Mountain site; however, there was no broad consensus regarding the
benefits and challenges of these uses among the experts we consulted.
The alternative uses span five broad categories: (1) nuclear or
radiological uses, such as locating a nuclear reprocessing complex at
or near the site; (2) defense or homeland security activities, such as
testing systems to detect and identify radioactive materials; (3)
information technology uses, such as secure electronic data storage;
(4) energy development or storage, such as using the site for
renewable energy development; and (5) scientific research, such as
geology or mining research. While some experts we contacted identified
benefits of the site for certain uses, experts also noted that many of
these proposed uses would be costly and may face significant
challenges. Several experts also noted that Yucca Mountain‘s
characteristics would not be critical to a number of the proposed
uses, and that many could be undertaken elsewhere.
Alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site face a number of legal and
administrative challenges. First, DOE‘s withdrawal of its application
to build a repository at Yucca Mountain is subject to continuing legal
proceedings, and resolution of these proceedings could preclude or
significantly delay alternative uses of the site. Second, potential
litigation regarding mining claims may affect alternative uses of the
site. Following the 2010 expiration of a land withdrawal order, 35
mining claims were recorded and processed by BLM. Although BLM
declared these claims void in August 2011, their legitimacy could be
litigated, which could delay or pose challenges to alternative uses of
the site. Third, because control of the site is divided among three
different federal agencies, potential alternative uses may face
challenges related to management of the site‘s lands. Fourth,
potential alternative uses of the site may be limited by national
security activities that currently take place on adjacent lands.
Fifth, as with any activity, proposed uses of the site will require
the user to comply with applicable federal and state regulations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-847] or key
components. For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-
3841 or ruscof@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Yucca Mountain Has Geographical, Structural, and Geophysical
Characteristics:
Stakeholders Proposed Various Alternative Uses but Experts Cited
Significant Challenges to Some Uses and Noted that Many Could Be
Undertaken Elsewhere:
Pursuing Alternative Uses of the Yucca Mountain Site Could Face Legal
and Administrative Challenges:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Concepts Proposed for Potential Alternative Uses of the
Yucca Mountain Site Documented by GAO:
Appendix III: List of Experts GAO Consulted:
Appendix IV: Description of Buildings and Facilities on the Yucca
Mountain Site:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Nuclear
Category:
Table 2: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Defense
and Homeland Security Category:
Table 3: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the
Information Technology Category:
Table 4: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Energy
Development or Storage Category:
Table 5: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Scientific
Research Category:
Table 6: Description of Buildings and Facilities at the Yucca Mountain
Site:
Figures:
Figure 1: Regional Location of Yucca Mountain Site:
Figure 2: Map of Location of Yucca Mountain Site and Agency Land
Management:
Figure 3: Schematic of Yucca Mountain Tunnels:
Figure 4: Photos of the Yucca Mountain North Portal Tunnel Entrance
and the Interior of the Main Tunnel:
Figure 5: Map Showing Federal Management Status of the Yucca Mountain
Site:
Figure 6: Map Showing Locations of Mining Claims in Relation to Yucca
Mountain Tunnel:
Abbreviations:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
Interior: Department of the Interior:
NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 16, 2011:
The Honorable Harry Reid:
Majority Leader:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Reid:
The United States has relied on electricity produced by nuclear power
plants for more than 50 years. As a byproduct, the plants also produce
highly radioactive materials that the federal government has planned
to dispose of in a deep underground facility. Since 1983, the
Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars to study the
Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for potential use as a nuclear waste
repository. Activities at the site have included investigating the
characteristics of the site, building tunnels and other
infrastructure, and developing and submitting an application for a
license to construct a nuclear waste repository there. Despite this
investment and the years of study, opinions differ on whether a
repository should be located at the Yucca Mountain site. In 2009 and
2010, DOE and the administration took steps to terminate the Yucca
Mountain repository program; legal proceedings concerning some of
these actions continue.
The Yucca Mountain site comprises 230 square miles of federal land,
including Yucca Mountain.[Footnote 1] The site is located in a remote
area of the Mojave Desert in southern Nevada. The area in and around
Yucca Mountain was subject to three decades of extensive studies for
suitability as a nuclear waste repository--making it, according to
some experts, one of the most studied sites in the world. During the
course of these studies, DOE made several changes to the site,
including boring two large tunnels into the rock under Yucca Mountain,
among other things. Some stakeholders--federal officials, state and
local government officials, private companies, and others--have
expressed interest in alternative uses for the site that they believe
may benefit from its characteristics. In this context, you asked us to
examine alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site. Specifically, we
examined: (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site; (2)
alternative uses stakeholders have proposed that may utilize these
characteristics, and experts' evaluations of those uses; and (3)
challenges, if any, in pursuing alternative uses.
To examine the characteristics of the site, we inspected parts of the
site to assess its condition and conduct a limited assessment of
existing assets.[Footnote 2] We reviewed documents, including DOE's
license application and environmental impact statements. We
interviewed current and former federal officials with knowledge of the
site, including officials from DOE, the U.S. Air Force in the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
in the Department of the Interior (Interior). To examine proposed
alternative uses, we contacted officials from federal, state, and
local government agencies; DOE national laboratories; private firms;
and others to identify stakeholders with ideas for alternative uses of
the Yucca Mountain site. We asked stakeholders to generate a list of
alternative uses. However, because the site has long been expected to
be the future site of a permanent nuclear waste repository and has not
been the subject of widespread consideration for other purposes, it is
important to note that the alternative uses discussed in this report
may not reflect all of the potential alternative uses for the site. In
order to identify experts to comment on the stakeholders' proposed
uses in each of the five broad categories, we approached experts
within nationally recognized organizations, including the National
Academy of Sciences, the Brookings Institution, and the RAND
Corporation, as well as other experts we knew of from our work in
these areas. We asked these experts to recommend other experts we
should include in this effort. We also took steps to ensure that all
of these experts could provide independent and objective opinions on
the proposed uses, including ensuring that none of them had any
financial or nonfinancial interests in any of the potential uses and
that they did not represent, advocate for, or benefit from any of the
stakeholders' proposed alternative uses of the site. From the list of
experts generated, we selected a nonprobability sample of 16 experts
to comment on the proposed alternative uses. Appendix III lists the
experts we consulted. We asked experts to respond to a structured data
collection instrument with questions on whether the potential uses
would utilize the site's characteristics and the benefits of and
challenges to the potential alternative uses. The scope of our work
did not include asking experts to evaluate the benefits of not using
the site for any use; moreover, no one we contacted for proposals
documented a proposal that the site not be used. To evaluate the
extent to which any of the potential alternative uses could conflict
with current or anticipated missions at the sites, we interviewed
officials from federal agencies operating at the adjacent Nevada
National Security Site and Nevada Test and Training Range.[Footnote 3]
To identify statutory, regulatory, and other challenges that would
have to be addressed to pursue alternative uses of the site, we
reviewed relevant laws and statutes and interviewed officials from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and General Services Administration; state officials from
Nevada, including the State Engineer and officials from the Nevada
Attorney General's office; and local officials, including officials
from Nye and Clark counties. See appendix I for additional information
about our scope and methodology.
We conducted our work from October 2010 to September 2011 in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings
and conclusions in this product.
Background:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directed DOE to investigate sites
for a federal geologic repository to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants and some
defense activities. DOE studied six sites in the West and three sites
in the South, and by 1986, DOE recommended three candidate sites for
site characterization: Hanford in Washington state, Deaf Smith County
in Texas, and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In 1987, however, Congress
amended the act to direct DOE to focus its efforts only on Yucca
Mountain--a site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Under
the amendment, DOE was to perform studies to determine if the site was
suitable for a repository. Since 1987, DOE studied the site, in
conjunction with its national laboratories, its private contractors,
and other federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey. In
addition, DOE was authorized to contract with commercial nuclear
reactor operators to take custody of their spent nuclear fuel for
disposal at the repository beginning in January 1998. Ultimately, DOE
was unable to begin receiving waste by 1998 because of a series of
delays due to, among other things, state and local opposition to the
construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository in Nevada and
technical complexities.[Footnote 4]
In June 2008, DOE submitted a license application to the NRC seeking
authorization to construct a high-level nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain.[Footnote 5] In the application, DOE stated that it
planned to open the repository in 2017. DOE later delayed the date to
2020. In March 2009, however, the Secretary of Energy announced plans
to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program and instead study
other nuclear waste options. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget
proposal, released in February 2010, proposed eliminating all funding
for the Yucca Mountain repository program.[Footnote 6] At about the
same time, the administration directed DOE to establish a Blue Ribbon
Commission of experts to conduct a comprehensive review of policies
for managing spent nuclear fuel, including all alternatives for the
storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent
nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste. The commission provided an
interim report in July 2011 and plans to release a final report by
January 2012.[Footnote 7]
On March 3, 2010, DOE submitted a motion to the NRC's Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board to withdraw its license application with
prejudice, a term described by DOE to mean the Yucca Mountain site
would be excluded from further consideration as a repository site. On
June 29, 2010, the licensing board denied DOE's motion, ruling that
DOE was obligated under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, to continue with the licensing effort. The board noted that,
even if the NRC approved the license application, there was no
guarantee the Yucca Mountain repository would ever be constructed for
any number of reasons, including congressional action changing the law
or a decision by Congress not to fund the proposed repository. In the
meantime, DOE took steps to dismantle the Yucca Mountain repository
program by the end of September 2010.
The lands of the Yucca Mountain site in southern Nevada partially
include some of the lands of two large federal sites: DOE's Nevada
National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and DOD's
Nevada Test and Training Range (formerly the Nellis Air Force Range).
The site comprises the following lands historically under the control
of three federal agencies--DOE, the U.S. Air Force within DOD, and
Interior's BLM (see figure 1):
* lands from DOE's Nevada National Security Site, managed by the
National Nuclear Security Administration;
* lands from the U.S. Air Force's Nevada Test and Training Range; and:
* lands managed by BLM's Southern Nevada District Office's Pahrump
Field Office.
Figure 1: Regional Location of Yucca Mountain Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: regional site map]
Location of Yucca Mountain Site is depicted in relation to the
following:
Beatty, Nevada;
Nevada National Security Site (DOE);
Nevada Test and Training Range (Air Force):
Other Federal lands;
Indian Springs, Nevada;
Mercury, Nevada;
Alamo, Nevada;
Las Vegas, Nevada;
Amargosa Valley, Nevada.
Sources: GAO analysis of GAO, BLM, and DOE data.
[End of figure]
Yucca Mountain Has Geographical, Structural, and Geophysical
Characteristics:
The Yucca Mountain site's geography, structures, and geophysical
characteristics could offer benefits or pose challenges to proposed
future alternative uses of the site.[Footnote 8] Geographical
characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site include a remote location
and the potential to be made highly secure. Structural site features
include two large tunnels, several permanent and temporary buildings,
and access to some utilities. Geophysically, the decades of study of
the Yucca Mountain site have determined that the site has little
surface water or groundwater, structurally stable volcanic rock, and
low levels of seismic activity.
Geographical Characteristics Include a Remote Location and Potential
for High Security:
The 230-square-mile Yucca Mountain site is in a remote area in Nye
County, Nevada. The closest major city, Las Vegas, Nevada, is about
100 miles away and the nearest town, the unincorporated Amargosa
Valley--estimated population 1,000--is located about 14 miles from the
tunnel entrances (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Map of Location of Yucca Mountain Site and Agency Land
Management:
[Refer to PDF for image: location map]
Depicted on the map:
BLM portion of the site;
DOE portion of the site;
Air Force portion of the site;
Nevada National Security Site;
Nevada Test and Training Range.
Sources: GAO analysis of GAO, BLM, and DOE data.
[End of figure]
Because the site partially includes some of the lands of DOE's Nevada
National Security Site and DOD's Nevada Test and Training Range, the
experts we spoke with told us it has the potential to be made highly
secure, which could be relevant to some proposed future alternative
uses of the site.[Footnote 9] Security is in place at both of these
sites, but there is no active security perimeter around the Yucca
Mountain site. However, the tunnel entrances are currently accessible
by a few paved roads through the Nevada National Security Site via the
main gate in Mercury, Nevada, which does have stringent security
requirements.[Footnote 10] Before the Yucca Mountain repository
program was terminated, another gate provided more direct access to
the Yucca Mountain site and is about 12 miles closer, but it is
currently closed. DOE officials told us there are some other paved
roads on the Yucca Mountain site but these roads are no longer
maintained and may have deteriorated. Use of the airspace over the DOE-
and DOD-controlled portions of the site is restricted, according to a
DOE document, although the airspace over the BLM-controlled portion is
not.
Site Features Include Two Tunnels, Several Buildings, and Access to
Some Utilities:
The primary feature on the Yucca Mountain site consists of two large
tunnels that DOE bored into and underneath Yucca Mountain (see figure
3).[Footnote 11] The main tunnel is U-shaped with two entrances--the
north portal and the south portal--and is about 5 miles long and 25
feet in diameter. Another 2-mile tunnel branches off of the main
tunnel. Each of these tunnels includes minor spurs and alcoves used to
house equipment and conduct experiments. A DOE report indicates that
the rock surrounding the tunnel has high structural integrity enabling
the tunnel to be self-supported by the existing rock structure,
whereas most tunnels require additional support. There are railroad
tracks inside the tunnel designed to move equipment and personnel
along the length of the tunnel, but these tracks may need repair
before they can be used again. DOE officials told us the tunnels are
subject to some radon gas emissions and silica dust, which requires
use of a ventilation system. Figure 3 is a schematic of the tunnel,
and figure 4 shows the north portal entrance with the piping used in
the ventilation system and the inside of the tunnel with the
ventilation piping overhead.
Figure 3: Schematic of Yucca Mountain Tunnels:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Surface:
At about 1,000 feet (300 meters): tunnels;
Another 1,000 feet (300 meters) to water table.
North portal: Main tunnel; Branch tunnel;
South portal: Main tunnel;
Tunnel location:
North portal, South portal: On Nevada National Security Site;
Tunnels (subsurface facilities) begin under Nevada National Security
Site, continue into BLM and Nevada Test and Training Range.
Sources: GAO analysis of GAO and DOE data.
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Photos of the Yucca Mountain North Portal Tunnel Entrance
and the Interior of the Main Tunnel:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: GAO; DOE.
[End of figure]
Some buildings used during investigations of the site as a nuclear
waste repository still remain. The north portal area was a key center
of activity during these investigations and retains several
structures. In particular, there is one large permanent building that
housed administrative offices, changing facilities for the workers,
and other services. In addition, there are several temporary buildings
used for offices and warehouses that, according to DOE officials, may
have exceeded their expected lifespans. There are also several
temporary storage containers that contain equipment and spare parts.
In addition to the facilities at the north portal area, there are two
permanent buildings located several miles from the tunnels that
contain, among other things, drilling samples and other equipment. As
we recently reported, when the repository program was terminated, DOE
transferred most of its office equipment, computers, and some other
equipment to other locations[Footnote 12]. DOE officials said that
most of the above-ground facilities and infrastructure at the Yucca
Mountain site were constructed more than 20 years ago and were
intended to be temporary and have not been maintained. In addition,
according to a DOE official, some of the buildings on the site do not
currently meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration or other
codes and may require modifications to comply. Appendix IV provides a
list of buildings and infrastructure on the site.
There are limited utilities available at the Yucca Mountain site,
including electrical, water, and telecommunications infrastructure.
However, according to DOE officials, much of this infrastructure is 30
or more years old, is not currently operational, and would require
investment to be placed back into service. Parts of the site are
connected to the Nevada National Security Site's electricity grid.
Since DOE terminated the Yucca Mountain project and the proposed
elimination of funding, power has been cut off to the site; however,
according to DOE officials, power could be restored to some areas
while service to other areas has been completely shut down. DOE
officials told us that any future use of the site would probably
require the existing power infrastructure to be replaced. The north
portal area and other parts of the site have limited water service,
provided by wells that draw groundwater--generally enough for
operation of the restrooms, kitchen, and limited domestic services.
However, the wells serving this system have failed in recent years and
water service has been shut down. Moreover, according to a Nevada
official, the current permit for use of water applies only to the work
done to evaluate the site for a repository and any alternative uses of
the Yucca Mountain site may require new water permits from the state
of Nevada. In addition, two large tanks that can store potable water
are on the site and are kept full during fire season. DOE officials
told us they do not plan to drain the tanks this year but noted that
since they are not winterized, the pipes could freeze and damage this
infrastructure. A basic telecommunications infrastructure is in place
on the site to provide for voice and data services and was replaced in
2006. However, the system is currently inactive, and the solar power
system that operates the system's telecommunications towers has been
disconnected. There is fiber-optic cable in some areas of the site as
well, but the contract for service and maintenance has been canceled.
Geophysical Characteristics Include Limited Surface and Groundwater,
Structurally Stable Rock and Little Seismic Activity:
As a result of three decades of study, much is known about the site's
geophysical characteristics, particularly its hydrologic, geologic,
and seismic characteristics. The site's hydrology is related to its
location in a semiarid environment, with little surface or
groundwater. Annual rainfall is less than 6 to 8 inches. There are a
few seasonal streams and other surface water bodies at or near Yucca
Mountain, but these are rarely flowing. There is groundwater beneath
the site, residing several thousand feet below the surface in most
locations.
Geologically, the top layer of the site is made up of welded volcanic
tuff--thermally bonded volcanic rock from ancient eruptions about 12
to 14 million years ago--at least 6,000 feet thick. This rock is
believed to have low permeability to water but contains fractures
where water could migrate through it. According to DOE's license
application to use the site as a nuclear repository, based on the
agency's studies, the site has few, if any, valuable minerals.
However, according to older studies and Nevada state government
officials, the potential for valuable mineral resources may exist.
According to DOE's license application, Yucca Mountain lies in an area
of low seismicity and earthquake potential. The site shows evidence of
some earthquake events during its geologic history, but according to
DOE documents, past earthquakes have occurred infrequently with tens
of thousands of years between events, although small earthquakes have
occurred since measurement began in recent decades. However, some
uncertainty exists about the sources of seismic signals recorded near
the Yucca Mountain site over the decades of study because activities
at adjacent sites--including underground nuclear explosions at the
Nevada National Security Site prior to the 1992 decision to stop
underground testing of nuclear weapons, airborne bombing at the Nevada
Test and Training Range, and surface drilling and detonations using
seismic charges to support geophysical investigations at Yucca
Mountain and nearby--may produce earthquake-like signals.
Stakeholders Proposed Various Alternative Uses but Experts Cited
Significant Challenges to Some Uses and Noted that Many Could Be
Undertaken Elsewhere:
Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca
Mountain site. We found no broad consensus among the experts we
consulted about the benefits and challenges of these uses, many of
whom told us that many of these uses would be costly and may require
federal assistance, and that some may face significant challenges.
Several experts noted that many proposed alternative uses could be
undertaken elsewhere.
Stakeholders Proposed Alternative Uses that Fell into Five Categories,
and We Found No Consensus among Experts about Their Benefits and
Challenges:
Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca
Mountain site spanning five broad categories, which include: (1)
nuclear or radiological uses, (2) defense or homeland security
activities, (3) information technology, (4) energy development or
storage, and (5) scientific research. The proposed alternative uses
were at varying levels of development and specificity, with some
having had more consideration and others in the conceptual phase. A
full list of the proposed alternative uses and a description of each
can be found in appendix II. We contacted experts in each of the five
categories to provide comments on the uses in their areas of
expertise. Overall, no broad consensus emerged among these experts
about the benefits and challenges of these proposed alternative uses.
Some experts identified some as good or great uses of the Yucca
Mountain site, while other experts identified those same uses as poor
or very poor uses of the site for varying reasons, as discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Nuclear or radiological uses. Stakeholders proposed 10 nuclear or
radiological uses of the Yucca Mountain site, including the production
of medical isotopes,[Footnote 13] reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel,
[Footnote 14] temporary or interim nuclear or radioactive waste
storage, and several uses related to nuclear power generation. Several
nuclear experts we contacted identified interim storage of nuclear
waste as a good or great potential use of the site, since it is
similar to the original proposed use and could therefore build on past
efforts and studies. On the other hand, one nuclear expert identified
use of the site for interim storage as very poor, noting that it is
impractical to transport high-level nuclear waste more than once.
[Footnote 15] Similarly, two stakeholders proposed producing medical
isotopes on the site, and nuclear experts differed on the benefits and
challenges of this use. As some experts acknowledged a need to
increase production of medical isotopes in the United States, they,
however, noted multiple challenges related to isotope production at
the Yucca Mountain site. For example, one expert questioned the
viability of the technologies stakeholders proposed to produce medical
isotopes--the use of electron accelerators or neutron generators.
Stakeholders also proposed two additional alternative uses related to
nuclear research--a nuclear technologies research facility and a
research reactor--that also received mixed responses from experts we
consulted. Some experts noted that such research is already conducted
at other locations, such as DOE's Idaho National Laboratory, and that
another research location is not necessary; further, some experts said
that they did not believe that there would be an adequate workforce in
Nevada to support such a facility. Moreover, one expert noted that a
research reactor would "only realize moderate benefit from historical
investments and infrastructure at Yucca Mountain."
Defense or homeland security activities. Stakeholders proposed six
alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site related to defense or
homeland security, including testing and training of the Active Denial
System, a nonlethal weapon;[Footnote 16] a training site for first
responders; and a command center for unmanned aerial vehicles. Some
defense experts we contacted identified some defense uses of the Yucca
Mountain Site as good or great uses. In particular, these experts
noted that the site may be well-suited for homeland security
activities, including using the site to test instruments to detect
radioactive and nuclear material. According to these experts, the
Yucca Mountain site would offer security, and the tunnels could
provide shielding for radioactive and nuclear materials as well as the
ability to test and train in both open and confined environments. One
expert stated that the Yucca Mountain tunnel could be used to simulate
a wide range of threats, including chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear, and explosive. For example, according to this expert, the
shielding provided by Yucca Mountain would prevent any radiation
"signature" from being detected above ground, which--coupled with the
potential of strong physical security of the site--would allow the
federal government to test classified systems and materials. Moreover,
any accidental release of hazardous or radioactive material used in
testing could be easily contained on site, according to one expert.
Some experts also told us that the site may offer benefits for first
responder training activities. For example, one expert noted that the
main tunnel could simulate a subway tunnel for training first
responders in underground environments. Moreover, the shielding and
containment of the tunnel could allow nuclear or other hazardous
materials to be used in training exercises, according to one expert.
On the other hand, some experts identified challenges associated with
proposed defense uses. For example, one expert noted that the enclosed
space of the Yucca Mountain tunnel may limit testing and training
activities. In particular, the tunnel would not effectively simulate
open or urban environments, where most actual responses would take
place, according to this expert. Currently, unmanned aerial vehicles
are operated at other sites not originally built for this purpose--
including Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, about 40
miles from the Yucca Mountain site--and which some have noted could be
vulnerable to an attack. One stakeholder suggested that such
operations could be moved or centralized to Yucca Mountain, which
would provide a more secure site. One expert stated that having a
highly secure command and control facility for unmanned aerial
vehicles will be essential in the future and identified this as a
great use of the site. On the other hand, another expert cited the
limited infrastructure at the site as a shortcoming to this use and
noted that it was not a very good fit for the unique characteristics
of Yucca Mountain.
Information technology. Stakeholders we contacted proposed three
alternative uses related to information technology, including using
the site for public emergency communications, secure electronic data,
or paper document storage. For example, one stakeholder proposed
locating a secure electronic data center at the Yucca Mountain site to
house classified federal data. According to some experts, some of the
benefits that the site may offer include potentially strong physical
security and proximity to a major internet hub that runs through Las
Vegas, Nevada, which could provide a great deal of flexibility in
managing and transmitting data. In addition, one expert noted that
locating a secure data center on-site could lead to some cost savings
if classified datasets that are currently managed in separate
locations could be consolidated. However, some experts told us that
using the site for a data center would require significant upgrades to
the data and communications infrastructure at the site to connect it
to existing infrastructure in Las Vegas. In particular, one expert
noted that securing communications infrastructure--including measures
to physically secure the communications links, along with efforts to
ensure adequate cybersecurity--can be expensive. Moreover, one expert
cited physical challenges to housing information technology in the
Yucca Mountain tunnels. For example, environmental controls would
likely need to be added to manage the environment within the tunnel.
DOE and state officials told us that humidity levels may be high in
the tunnels without an operating ventilation system due to
condensation of water from the air. As a result, U.S. Geological
Survey officials said that ventilation fans may be required to operate
in the tunnels in order to house computer servers or other electronic
equipment. In addition, the stakeholder proposing use of the tunnels
for data storage told us that heat emitted by servers may require
substantial cooling.
Energy development. Stakeholders we contacted proposed seven
alternative uses of Yucca Mountain related to energy development or
storage. Three of the proposed uses concerned production of renewable
energy, while three other proposed uses support renewable energy
development, and one stakeholder proposed using the site as a
strategic petroleum reserve for the western states.[Footnote 17] One
expert noted that research into geothermal energy development is
needed and cited advantages for this use at Yucca Mountain, but
another expert stated that this was a poor use of the site and that
the site did not provide any unique advantages for this use. Other
experts identified benefits to using the site for solar energy
development, since the area is rich in sunlight, but one cited the
ruggedness of the terrain as a challenge. Stakeholders also proposed
using the site for research into renewable energy sources, including
solar, wind, and geothermal energy, and carbon capture. Two experts
identified this as a good or great use of the site, noting that more
research into renewable energy technologies is needed, but some
experts identified challenges related to this use, including
challenges related to building transmission lines. Three other uses--
compressed air storage, hydroelectric energy storage, and a renewable
energy storage laboratory--would use the main tunnel to store
renewable energy for later use. For these uses, stakeholders proposed
sealing the main tunnel and using it to store energy--either as
compressed air or pumped water. Such systems work by storing energy
produced when production is high (e.g., during the day when solar
energy is produced) by compressing air or pumping water upstream and
releasing the air or water to produce energy when demand is high. A
few experts noted that more research into compressed air storage in
tunnels is needed and cited a demonstration project as a great use of
the Yucca Mountain site. One expert stated that the Yucca Mountain
site was "critical" to use as a renewable energy storage laboratory,
noting that the tunnel and related infrastructure were unique assets
that could provide a commercial-scale demonstration project. On the
other hand, some experts identified the proposed uses related to
renewable energy storage as poor or very poor uses, noting that there
are a number of challenges to these uses at the site, such as the
permeability of the site's geology.[Footnote 18] One stakeholder
proposed using the site as a strategic petroleum reserve for the
western part of the country, but several experts identified this as a
poor use of the site for a number of reasons. For example, one expert
noted that there already is adequate strategic petroleum reserve
capacity elsewhere in the United States.
Scientific research. Stakeholders we contacted proposed four
alternative uses related to scientific research, including using the
site for a geological laboratory and storage site for geological
samples, as a center for research into highly-infectious diseases, for
mining research, or for other scientific and university research.
According to one scientific expert, the site could be used to store
geological samples at a cost that would be relatively low compared to
other uses for the site, but another expert noted that this use was
not of much value at the site, since it would not take advantage of
the large investment into site characterization made in the past.
Regarding the proposal for a center for disease research, one expert
stated that this research would be of "vital interest to scientists as
well as those concerned with national security," and other experts
identified some of the site's characteristics, such as its remoteness,
as benefits to this use. However, one expert stated that a subsurface
facility would not be ideal for this use, given the need for
ventilation and access. One expert identified mining education as a
good use of the site, noting that the physical infrastructure, history
of the construction, and continued exploration of Yucca Mountain
present an "unmatched opportunity" for students of mining or geology
in general. Other experts also saw benefits to using the site for this
use, but one stated that, overall, this was not an optimal use given
the substantial past investment in the site. One stakeholder proposed
using the site for scientific research to explore a variety of
research areas, including the atomic structure of matter.[Footnote 19]
This stakeholder noted that research at such a facility may address a
wide variety of current challenges, including improving the conversion
of solar energy, efficiency and durability of battery storage, and
pollution control from energy production. According to one expert,
using the site as a research center may be a good use, but other
experts identified this as a poor or very poor use and cited multiple
challenges, such as accessibility to the site, given its remoteness.
Many Proposed Alternative Uses May Be Costly or Face Significant
Challenges:
Many of the proposed alternative uses of Yucca Mountain may be costly--
requiring federal funding to make them economically viable--or face
major challenges, according to many of the 16 experts we contacted. In
particular, many of the proposed nuclear uses would be costly to
implement, according to some nuclear experts, and would only be
feasible with financial support from the federal government. For
example, the stakeholder who proposed using the site for the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, as well as several nuclear
experts, acknowledged that reprocessing using current technologies is
very expensive and not economically viable at this time. One expert
noted that an industry estimate of the cost to build a nuclear
reprocessing facility in the United States is $25 billion. Similarly,
two experts stated that it would be costly to build nuclear reactors
for power generation at the Yucca Mountain site, with one noting that
doing so would require federal funding. It would also be expensive to
use the site for production of medical isotopes, according to two
experts, both in terms of capital and operating costs, and one expert
said that this use would also require federal funds. Moreover, several
experts said that many of the nuclear uses may face other significant
challenges, including local public resistance. For example, one expert
noted that opposition to using Yucca Mountain for any nuclear or
radioactive waste disposal, including interim waste storage, would be
a challenge, especially if there was no long-term plan for addressing
the waste. In addition, one expert noted that some individuals fear
that allowing interim storage of nuclear waste at the site would
preserve the option to allow it to be used for permanent storage of
such waste. Moreover, some experts noted that several of the proposed
alternative nuclear uses, including nuclear power generation and
reprocessing, require significant amounts of water, which may be a
significant challenge at the site, given the scarcity of water in
Nevada.[Footnote 20]
Some defense experts we contacted also said that some of the proposed
defense or homeland security uses would be costly to implement or face
other significant challenges. For example, some experts cited the high
cost of using Yucca Mountain as a command and control center for the
military, which would require significant upgrades to data
communications, water infrastructure, and infrastructure within the
tunnel. In particular, one expert noted that the requirement to
develop survivable communications infrastructure for command and
control would be significant. Two experts also noted that it would be
costly to use the Yucca Mountain site as a command center for unmanned
aerial vehicles. According to one expert, there are already sites in
place that serve these purposes, and it would be costly to move them.
Several of the proposed uses in the energy category may also be
expensive to implement or face major challenges, according to some
energy experts. For example, using the site for compressed air storage
may not be cost-effective on its own and would require significant
investment of outside funds, according to one expert. This expert also
noted that it was unlikely that the application would result in large-
scale commercial deployment. Two other experts identified sealing and
reconfiguring the tunnel for this use as also being costly. Similarly,
some experts identified high costs related to using the tunnel for
hydrological energy storage or as a renewable energy storage
laboratory. One expert said that outside funding would also be
required for solar energy development at the site, since there is not
currently a well-developed market for solar electricity, and a few
other experts identified high costs associated with this use,
including the cost to build transmission lines to the site and other
infrastructure. Using the site as a strategic petroleum reserve may
also face significant challenges, according to some experts. One
expert stated that the amount of petroleum that could be stored in the
Yucca Mountain tunnels is insignificant when considering the nation's
current rate of consumption and storage capacity elsewhere. Moreover,
this expert noted that transporting the petroleum would be a
challenge, since it would have to be transported from U.S. petroleum
sources or coastal delivery ports.
According to some of the experts we contacted, some of the proposed
scientific uses may also be costly or face other significant
challenges. For example, using the site for a research center on the
atomic structure of matter would be very expensive to build and
operate, according to some experts. Research in this area would
require a large, advanced accelerator, which one expert stated would
cost billions of dollars to build. In addition, such an accelerator
may require a particular shape, according to one expert, which the
Yucca Mountain tunnels may not match, thus requiring additional
excavation. Construction started on a similar facility in Texas in the
1980s--the Superconducting Super Collider--but the project was shut
down due to high costs, among other concerns. Building a research
center to study highly infectious diseases would also be costly,
according to one expert, and may generate controversy and local
resistance.
Experts Noted that Many Proposed Alternative Uses Could be Undertaken
Elsewhere:
Several experts stated that Yucca Mountain's characteristics would not
be critical to many of the alternative uses proposed by stakeholders,
with some noting that other locations might offer some of the same
benefits while posing fewer challenges. For example, nuclear experts
we contacted identified a number of nuclear uses that could be
undertaken elsewhere. One expert told us that interim waste disposal
could happen "anywhere in the country"--DOE has reported that spent
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that had been planned to
be disposed of at Yucca Mountain is currently stored at 121 sites in
39 states.[Footnote 21] In addition, some experts said that they did
not believe that the remoteness or level of security at the site was
critical for production of medical isotopes, with two experts stating
that medical isotopes should be produced closer to the locations in
which they will be used--hospitals and research facilities--especially
considering their short half-lives.[Footnote 22] Likewise, as one
expert cited the remoteness of Yucca Mountain as an advantage in the
reprocessing of nuclear waste, another expert stated that other
locations would be better suited--including DOE's Idaho National
Laboratory or Savannah River Site, which both have an existing
infrastructure and workforce. And several experts noted that nuclear
power plants would be better sited closer to population centers that
could use the power.
Similarly, the defense experts we contacted told us that
characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site were not critical to some
of the defense and homeland security uses stakeholders proposed. For
example, testing of the Active Denial System could be safely done in
any remote location, according to one expert, who noted that the
shielding that Yucca Mountain provides would not be critical to this
use. Moreover, another expert stated that there are likely many other
military test ranges in the United States where testing and training
of this weapon could take place. In addition, two experts stated that
using the Yucca Mountain site as a command and control center or a
command center for unmanned aerial vehicles could both be done
elsewhere and with potentially fewer challenges. For example, it would
cost significantly more to use the Yucca Mountain site as a command
center for these vehicles rather than using an existing military base
that already has infrastructure to support personnel, such as housing,
in place.
Some of the proposed information technology uses could also be
undertaken elsewhere, according to some experts. For example, the
stakeholder that proposed using Yucca Mountain for secure data storage
told us that, while Yucca Mountain would offer some advantages to this
use, it could be undertaken at other locations, noting in particular
that some underground facilities on the adjacent Nevada National
Security Site would also provide a high level of security as well as
other benefits similar to those offered by the Yucca Mountain site. In
addition, one expert stated that the use of the site for storage of
highly secure electronic data would benefit from the potentially
strong physical security of the site, but another expert stated that
the characteristics at Yucca Mountain were not central to the proposed
concept. In particular, the second expert noted that the site's
isolation may pose challenges for making the needed data capacity
upgrades and consolidating data in one location could make it more
susceptible to cyber attacks. Similarly, one expert stated that the
proposed public emergency communications site would be better located
closer to Las Vegas, Nevada, where most of the first responders are
located. Moreover, this expert noted that it may be difficult to
broadcast emergency messages from a submerged rock tunnel.
For the proposed energy uses, some experts stated that there are many
other sites that would be suitable for solar and geothermal
development. One expert noted that there are many areas in the
Southwest that are well-suited for solar power, and another expert
stated that Yucca Mountain's remote location would present some
disadvantages in that it is far from a customer base that could use
and finance the power and would require construction of adequate
transmission lines to move the electricity to population centers.
Similarly, one expert pointed out that there are many locations in the
Southwest with high levels of geothermal activity, and another expert
stated that most of Nevada's geothermal activity is in the northern
part of the state. Some experts said that some of the Yucca Mountain
site's characteristics would be critical for renewable energy storage,
but others noted that other locations may be better suited. For
example, one expert stated that compressed air energy storage may face
challenges in any area with seismic activity, since even a small
tremor may rupture an airtight seal. Another expert identified Yucca
Mountain as a unique location for studying tunnel-based storage but
noted that other sites could be used for hydrological energy storage.
One expert stated that a strategic petroleum reserve would be better
placed elsewhere, such as in an abandoned mine that is much bigger and
closer to existing petroleum sources and distribution infrastructure.
Some experts said that Yucca Mountain's location was not critical to
some scientific uses either. According to one scientific expert,
storing geological samples could be done elsewhere at a lower cost,
including in surface warehouses. Similarly, while one expert
identified the remoteness of the Yucca Mountain site as offering
advantages to a research center to explore the atomic structure of
matter, two experts also identified this as a challenge, with one
noting that the remoteness of the site may prevent federal and
academic scientists from the collaboration that is critical to
multidisciplinary research projects. Experts cited similar concerns
regarding use of the site as a center for research into highly-
infectious diseases, with one noting that the site's location may make
it difficult to hire a skilled workforce.
Pursuing Alternative Uses of the Yucca Mountain Site Could Face Legal
and Administrative Challenges:
Alternative uses of Yucca Mountain could face a number of legal and
administrative challenges if they were to be pursued. These challenges
include legal proceedings regarding the site's original planned use as
a repository, potential litigation related to mining claims on the
site, federal agencies' divided control over the site, and activities
on adjacent federal lands. In addition, any proposed uses of Yucca
Mountain would be subject to applicable federal and state regulations.
Resolution of Legal Proceedings Could Preclude or Significantly Delay
Alternative Uses:
The outcome of legal proceedings concerning whether the Yucca Mountain
site will be used as a nuclear waste repository could significantly
delay or preclude the pursuit of alternative uses of the Yucca
Mountain site. Specifically, two separate but related legal
proceedings--one before the NRC and another before a federal appellate
court--were unresolved as of September 9, 2011, when this report was
being prepared for publication. Specifically,
* After DOE submitted a motion in March 2010 to an NRC Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board to withdraw its application to license Yucca
Mountain as the nation's first repository for spent fuel and high-
level nuclear waste, the licensing board denied DOE's motion to
withdraw its licensing application in June 2010, and stated that the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, mandates progress toward
a decision on the construction permit. However, NRC issued an order
inviting parties to file briefs addressing whether the NRC
commissioners should review the board's decision and, if so, whether
the commissioners should uphold or reverse it. On September 9, 2011,
the commissioners considered whether or not to overturn or uphold the
board's decision. However, they were evenly divided and unable to take
a final action on the matter. Instead, the commissioners directed the
licensing board, consistent with budgetary limitations, to complete
all necessary and appropriate case management activities, including
disposing of the matters before the board, by September 30, 2011.
Continued NRC proceedings or challenges in federal court could delay
or preclude alternative uses.
* In response to DOE's attempt to withdraw its license application,
several states and private parties sued DOE and NRC in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[Footnote 23] These
petitioners contended that DOE had no authority to terminate the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository. On July 1, 2011, the court
dismissed the case, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over
the petitioners' claims because the Yucca Mountain licensing
proceeding remained pending before the NRC. In addition, the court
stated that if the NRC fails to rule on the license application within
the period provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended,[Footnote 24] the petitioners would have a new cause of
action. On July 29, 2011, the same petitioners, joined by Nye County,
Nevada, filed a petition against NRC asking the court to, among other
things, compel NRC to provide a proposed schedule with milestones and
a date certain for approving or disapproving the license application.
If the court finds for the petitioners, the license application review
process may resume and alternative uses could be delayed or precluded.
A ruling by the NRC or the court may reopen the possibility of Yucca
Mountain again being considered for a permanent nuclear waste
repository, although fully reinstating these efforts could require
Congress to take several steps, including appropriating funds. In the
event that the site is developed into a repository, it would preclude
use of the site for alternative uses. Even without a ruling, potential
alternative uses will almost certainly be delayed until the legal
issues surrounding the original use of Yucca Mountain have been
resolved.
Potential Litigation Related to Mining Claims Could Affect Alternative
Uses of the Site:
DOE's access to the BLM portion of the Yucca Mountain site has
changed. During DOE's study of the Yucca Mountain site, Interior
provided DOE the right to use lands managed by BLM. Specifically, BLM
granted a right-of-way in 1988 to allow DOE to have access to the
entire BLM portion of the Yucca Mountain site (see figure 5), which
comprises a total of about 81 square miles.[Footnote 25] According to
DOE and Interior officials, the right-of-way allowed for other uses of
the site lands, including mining, as long as they did not interfere
with DOE's study of the Yucca Mountain site for a potential
repository.[Footnote 26] Within the lands covered by the right-of-way,
Interior issued a public land order in 1990 that established
additional restrictions on the BLM portion of the land nearest to and
directly above the tunnel.[Footnote 27] This public land order
withdrew 6.6 square miles of the BLM portion of the site's land within
the 81 square miles covered by the right-of-way from location under
the mining laws and from leasing under the mineral leasing laws. The
order effectively prevented new mining claims in the area above the
tunnel as well as the area expected to be where waste would be stored
underground, according to DOE documents, as well as the lands in the
immediate vicinity (see figure 5).[Footnote 28] In 2008, DOE asked the
Secretary of the Interior to extend the land withdrawal order beyond
its scheduled expiration date in January 2010, but the Secretary did
not grant the extension. However, the right-of-way covering the BLM
portion of the site still applies to these lands until its scheduled
expiration date in 2014.
Figure 5: Map Showing Federal Management Status of the Yucca Mountain
Site:
[Refer to PDF for image: site map]
Depicted on the map:
Main tunnel;
Branching tunnel;
BLM portion of the site:
BLM lands withdrawn by order of the Secretary of the Interior;
DOE portion of the site;
Air Force portion of the site.
Sources: GAO analysis of DOE and BLM data.
[End of figure]
After the scheduled expiration of the public land order, private
parties filed 35 mining claims on the 6.6 square-mile area covered by
the land withdrawal, which the BLM Nevada State Office recorded and
processed.[Footnote 29] As of July 2011, BLM had initially determined
that almost all of these 35 mining claims were "active," or in good
standing; that is, the claims were on lands open to mineral entry and
were properly filed.[Footnote 30] Based on our analysis, 8 of these 35
mining claims directly overlay a section of the existing main Yucca
Mountain tunnel and others appeared to be located above the planned
nuclear waste storage areas (see figure 6). In August 2011, however,
Interior officials told us that as a result of our inquiry and
subsequent discussions with agency officials, BLM, in consultation
with Interior's Office of the Solicitor, which performs the legal work
of Interior's bureaus and offices, determined that the 35 mining
claims were filed on lands not open for mineral location. In making
this determination, BLM and Interior officials told us that, although
the public land order withdrawing the lands from location under the
mining laws and leasing under mineral leasing laws had expired, the
Secretary of the Interior had not issued an "opening order" to
formally reopen the land, and the lands would therefore remain closed
until such an order had been issued. As a result, BLM officials told
us that they declared the claims to be "void ab initio," that is void
from the start, in August 2011.[Footnote 31] BLM plans to refund about
$8,000 to the private parties who held the 35 claims. If they disagree
with BLM's declaration, the parties have 30 days to appeal the
decision to Interior. Separately, private entities had filed 83
additional mining claims on the land covered by the right-of-way
outside the lands subject to the public land order. According to BLM
officials, these 83 claims are active, but the owners of these claims
would have to work with BLM and DOE to begin significant mining
activities. Most of these claims are located near the southern and
western boundaries of the site.
Figure 6: Map Showing Locations of Mining Claims in Relation to Yucca
Mountain Tunnel:
[Refer to PDF for image: site map]
Depicted on the map:
Main tunnel;
Branching tunnel;
BLM portion of the site:
BLM lands withdrawn by order of the Secretary of the Interior;
Mining claims within withdrawn area;
DOE portion of the site;
Air Force portion of the site.
Sources: GAO analysis of DOE and BLM data.
[End of figure]
Even though BLM has declared the 35 mining claims void ab initio,
Interior officials acknowledged that the claims' status could
ultimately be the subject of litigation, which may present challenges
or cause delays to future uses of the site. For example, if mining
claims that include the tunnel are recognized as active and in good
standing following litigation, future potential alternative users
might have to negotiate with the holder of the mining claim in order
to make use of portions of the tunnel included in the claims, or seek
to buy out the mining claim. Similarly, if mining operations were
allowed, some officials noted that activities on the claims, such as
blasting, could pose risks to the integrity of the tunnel.[Footnote 32]
Federal Agencies' Divided Control of the Yucca Mountain Site May
Present Challenges to Alternative Uses:
Because the Yucca Mountain site and the tunnels are within lands
managed by three separate federal agencies, potential alternative uses
of the site may face challenges related to the management of the
site's lands. Currently, DOE has use of all three portions of the
Yucca Mountain site through its right-of-way agreement with BLM and an
additional right-of-way agreement with BLM and the U.S. Air Force to
access lands controlled by the Air Force. These right-of-way
agreements were provided to DOE for site investigation activities and
are scheduled to expire in 2014. After 2014, full control of the lands
and tunnel will revert to the Air Force, BLM, and DOE.[Footnote 33] As
noted, the tunnels' portals open onto DOE's Nevada National Security
Site, but the tunnels also underlie BLM and Air Force land.
Any potential future user of the site would have to coordinate with
all three agencies, absent a change in the management or ownership of
the land. Agency officials and stakeholders discussed three possible
scenarios under which the Yucca Mountain site's land could be managed
if an alternative use were pursued as well as some potential outcomes
of these scenarios, as follows:
* Site remains federally managed. DOE, BLM, and the U.S. Air Force
could continue to manage the site's lands under the control of each
agency. As a result, a potential user might have to hold negotiations
and come to agreements with each agency separately, as was done by the
managers of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository project. In this case, the
user would likely be subject to current DOE rules, such as
restrictions placed on foreign nationals' access to the Nevada
National Security Site and the payment of service fees that DOE
charges for use of the DOE portion of the site.[Footnote 34]
Similarly, each of the other agencies may have unique concerns that
may need to be addressed individually.
* Sale of site lands to a private landowner. Any private acquisition
of land would have to address acquisition of lands currently held by
DOE, BLM, and possibly the U.S. Air Force; this may require
significant legal steps. For example, Air Force lands have been
legislatively withdrawn to serve its mission, so congressional action
may be required before Air Force lands could be sold. In addition, to
give users access to the site, DOE would at least have to grant rights-
of-way through the Nevada National Security Site, or congressional
action may have to be taken. In addition, if there are any existing
mining claims, the potential user that acquired the lands could take
title of the land subject to the existing mining claims or could buy
out the claims.
* Congressional land withdrawal for a specific use. If it chooses to
do so, Congress has the power to set aside land for specific federal
agencies through legislative action, including by withdrawal of lands,
such as the Yucca Mountain site lands, for specific purposes from the
public land laws. In addition, Congress could specify conditions or
restrictions associated with the land withdrawal, such as to what
extent other land management laws or regulations apply.
Activities on Adjacent Federal Lands May Limit Some Alternative Uses:
Potential future uses of the site may be limited by the highly
sensitive national security activities that take place on adjacent
federal lands. At the Nevada National Security Site, DOE activities
include subcritical testing of nuclear bomb components to support
DOE's stockpile stewardship mission, nuclear device assembly and
storage, and other activities. At the U.S. Air Force's Nevada Test and
Training Range, activities include training pilots, dropping live
bombs, and testing of radar and other military equipment, among other
things. Air Force officials we spoke with told us that an important
part of what makes the Nevada Test and Training Range an asset to the
Air Force is that it provides a unique opportunity for pilots and
others to test equipment and train personnel in a large area of
"pristine" airspace without any electromagnetic interference. Some
potential uses may create electromagnetic or other interference. For
example, wind turbines would be of concern because the spinning blades
of wind turbines, even if they are miles away, can create reflective
radar effects that could seriously impede the testing of new sensing
equipment. In addition, Air Force officials told us that they may have
concerns about other uses as well--such as proposed uses that would
increase civilian or aviation activity on the border of the Nevada
Test and Training Range--but that each use would have to be evaluated
on a case-by-case basis.[Footnote 35] Similarly, the Nevada National
Security Site conducts some activities that are highly sensitive and
that DOE requires to be secure from outside observation. As such, DOE
officials noted that some uses, particularly those that could provide
observation of key portions of the Nevada National Security Site,
would not be consistent with the site's mission.
In addition to these restrictions, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal
Aviation Administration regulate the use of airspace over most of the
site. In particular, the DOE and Air Force portions are restricted
from all civilian air traffic. However, the airspace above the BLM
portion of the site is unrestricted, according to DOE documents.
Any Proposed Use of the Site Will Require Addressing a Range of
Regulatory Requirements:
Any proposed alternative use of the site will require the use to
comply with applicable federal and state regulations, as with any
activity. For example, alternative uses that result in air emissions,
such as emissions from any gas-powered generators or dust if there is
construction on the site, would require operators to obtain air
permits from Nevada. Similarly, construction of some buildings may
require permits and steps to address Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and other building-specific requirements. In addition,
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended requires
that proposed major federal actions that significantly affect the
quality of the human environment must be accompanied by a detailed
statement which includes the environmental impacts of the proposed
action, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, and
alternatives to the proposed action. The specific regulatory
requirements needed for a specific alternative use would depend on the
nature of the use.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided Interior, DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and NRC with a draft of
this report for their review and comment. Interior did not provide
written comments on our draft report. However, in e-mails, the
Interior liaison stated that Interior concurred with the findings in
the report. Interior also provided written technical comments, which
we incorporated as appropriate. We received written comments on the
draft report from DOE, which are reproduced in appendix V. DOE neither
agreed with nor disagreed with our findings and also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The U.S. Air
Force did not provide written comments but provided technical
comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. We received
written comments on the draft report from NRC, which are reproduced in
appendix VI. NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with the findings in the
report and also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as
appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior,
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of
NRC, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Frank Rusco:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
For this report, we examined (1) the characteristics of the Yucca
Mountain site; (2) alternative uses stakeholders have proposed that
may utilize these characteristics, and experts' evaluations of those
uses; and (3) challenges, if any, in pursuing alternative uses.
For the purposes of this report, we have defined the Yucca Mountain
site to include the lands that were withdrawn or reserved from lands
historically managed by the Department of Energy (DOE), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and the U.S. Air Force when the site was being
investigated for use as a nuclear waste repository, as well as lands
authorized by the BLM for such use. To examine the characteristics of
the Yucca Mountain site, we inspected several portions of the site to
assess its conditions and conduct a limited assessment of existing
assets. During our site inspection, we visited both tunnel portals as
well as the site's permanent and temporary structures. Our assessment
of the site did not include an inspection of the tunnels because of
the costs to reopen them and make them safe for inspection. As a
result of the proposed elimination of federal funding for the Yucca
Mountain Project, DOE discontinued most activities at the site in 2010
and took steps to close the site,[Footnote 36] including closing
access to the tunnels and turning off utilities, including the power
for the ventilation system. DOE determined that reopening the tunnels,
because of the steps that had been taken to close the site, would cost
$20,000-$50,000 for one day. In addition to our site inspection, we
reviewed documents, including DOE's license application, environmental
impact statements, public land orders, and relevant laws and
regulations. We also interviewed officials with knowledge of the site,
including officials from DOE, the Department of Defense, and the
Department of the Interior's BLM and U.S. Geological Survey, as well
as other experts with knowledge of the site. Finally, we worked with
agency officials familiar with Geographical Information Systems to
create maps of the site encompassing various data layers.
To examine proposed alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site, we
contacted federal, state, and local government agencies; national
laboratories; private firms; nonprofit agencies; and others to
identify stakeholders with ideas for alternative uses of the Yucca
Mountain site. We also asked each stakeholder we identified, in
addition to gathering information on the proposed alternative uses,
whether he or she knew of any other such proposals. Using this
snowball methodology, we attempted to uncover all reasonably plausible
ideas for uses that have been put forward, from those in the early
stages of formation and discussion to more fully developed proposals.
However, in part because the site has long been expected to be the
future site of a permanent nuclear waste repository and has not been
the subject of widespread consideration for other purposes, it is
important to note that the alternative uses discussed in this report
may not reflect all of the potential alternative uses for the site. We
asked stakeholders to describe their proposed alternative uses using a
structured data collection instrument. We then consolidated proposed
uses in order to avoid duplication; for example, we received two
proposals related to first responder training activities, which we
consolidated into one. We then sorted the proposed uses into five
broad categories: (1) nuclear uses, (2) defense or homeland security
activities, (3) information technology, (4) energy development or
storage, and (5) scientific research. The complete list of proposed
alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site that are considered in
this report is given in appendix II.
In order to identify experts to comment on the stakeholders' proposed
uses in each of the five broad categories, we approached experts
within nationally recognized organizations, including the National
Academy of Sciences, the RAND Corporation, and the Brookings
Institution, as well as other experts we knew of from our work in
these areas, for their recommendations on names of experts we should
include in this effort. We did not attempt to snowball a complete list
of experts in each of these categories, but rather to ensure we had at
least a few well-respected experts within each category of expertise,
who could provide informed comments on the proposed alternative uses.
We also took steps to ensure that all of these experts could provide
independent and objective opinions on the proposed uses, including
ensuring that none of them had any financial or nonfinancial interests
in any of the potential uses, and that they did not represent,
advocate for, or benefit from any of the stakeholders' proposed
alternative uses of the site. From the list of experts generated, we
then selected a nonprobability sample of 16 experts to comment on the
stakeholders' proposed uses in each of the five broad categories.
Specifically, there were five expert perspectives in the nuclear
category, three in the defense category, three in the information
technology category, five in the energy category, and three in the
research category. (Since some of the experts could provide expertise
in more than one category, these sum up to more than 16.) We created
and used a structured data collection instrument to elicit comments
from the experts on each proposed alternative use. Specifically, we
asked experts to provide information on whether the proposed
alternative uses would utilize the site's characteristics; the
benefits of, challenges to, and costs of the uses; the criticality of
Yucca Mountain's characteristics to the uses; and the experts' overall
opinions on the uses. We compiled and analyzed the provided
information. Appendix III lists the experts we consulted. The scope of
our work did not include asking experts to evaluate the benefits of
not using the site for any use; moreover, no one we contacted for
proposals documented a proposal that the site not be used.
To identify the statutory, regulatory, and other challenges that would
have to be addressed to pursue alternative uses, we reviewed relevant
laws, regulations, and guidance. We interviewed agency officials from
DOE, including officials from the Nevada Site Office, the former
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the Office of
General Counsel. We also interviewed federal officials from the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office, and the General
Services Administration; state officials from Nevada, including
officials from the Nevada Attorney General's office, the State of
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and the Nevada State
Engineer; and local officials from Nye and Clark Counties. We also
consulted officials from federal agencies operating at the adjacent
Nevada National Security Site, Nevada Test and Training Range, and BLM
land to evaluate the extent to which any of the potential uses could
conflict with current or anticipated missions at the sites. We used
Geographic Information Systems data to determine the locations of
mining claims on the Yucca Mountain site and compared them to the
locations of the tunnels and other infrastructure on the site.
We conducted our work from October 2010 to September 2011 in
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings
and conclusions in this product.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Concepts Proposed for Potential Alternative Uses of the
Yucca Mountain Site Documented by GAO:
Tables 1 through 5 provide a complete list of the alternative uses
that were proposed by stakeholders we contacted, as well as examples
of their benefits and challenges identified by experts we contacted.
Table 1: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Nuclear
Category:
Proposed use: Energy park;
Description provided by stakeholder: A commercial energy park for
nuclear, solar, and wind power generation could be built on the site;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet electricity demand;
* Would provide energy sources with low greenhouse gas emissions;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* High cost;
* Lack of water at site;
* Licensing and regulatory challenges.
Proposed use: Interim storage of nuclear waste;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
centralized interim retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would benefit from past site characterization and licensing efforts;
* Would allow for underground storage of nuclear waste, which may be
safer than above-ground storage;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Issues and costs related to transporting waste to site;
* Public acceptance of use.
Proposed use: Medical isotope production, using an accelerator;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to create
medical isotopes through the use of electron accelerators;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Would help meet
national need for medical isotopes;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Lack of proximity to hospitals or other locations where isotopes
would be used;
transportation time given the short half-lives of medical isotopes;
* High capital and operating cost.
Proposed use: Medical isotope production, using a neutron generator;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to create
medical isotopes through the use of neutron generators coupled with
uranium blankets;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Would help meet
national need for medical isotopes;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Lack of proximity to hospitals or other locations where isotopes
would be used;
transportation time given the short half-lives of medical isotopes;
* Questions about viability of technology;
more proof of concept needed.
Proposed use: Mixed waste treatment facility;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a mixed
waste treatment and research facility to conduct research into
treating low-and mixed-level waste;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet national need for waste disposal;
* Would benefit from some past site characterization efforts;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Public acceptance of use;
* Licensing and regulatory challenges.
Proposed use: Nuclear power generation;
Description provided by stakeholder: Nuclear power could be generated
on the site;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet electricity demand in country;
* Would provide an energy source with reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Lack of water at site;
* High cost to build facility and transmission lines;
* Licensing and regulatory challenges.
Proposed use: Nuclear technologies research facility;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a
research facility for advanced nuclear technologies;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Some research needs
would benefit from remote location;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* May be difficult to staff facility with appropriate workforce;
* Redundant facilities are currently located elsewhere, such as Idaho
National Laboratory.
Proposed use: Nuclear waste reprocessing;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
nuclear waste reprocessing and research, with the existing facilities
used for temporary storage of nuclear waste throughout reprocessing;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would benefit from some past site characterization efforts;
* Would make use of underground infrastructure for interim waste
storage;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Extremely high cost;
* Lack of water at site;
* Public acceptance of use.
Proposed use: Research reactor;
Description provided by stakeholder: A high-temperature nuclear
reactor for research and power could be built on the site;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would provide new energy sources of potential benefit to the country;
* Would benefit from some past site characterization and modeling
efforts;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* New custom design for reactor would be needed, which is currently
only in the conceptual phase;
* Cost;
* Public acceptance of use.
Proposed use: Underground nuclear reactor;
Description provided by stakeholder: An air-cooled underground nuclear
reactor could be built on the site;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would provide new energy sources of potential benefit to the country;
* In the event of a nuclear accident, underground location may be
safer than above-ground;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Cost;
* Licensing and regulatory issues;
* Limited applicability at other sites.
Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and
experts.
[End of table]
Table 2: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Defense
and Homeland Security Category:
Proposed use: Command and control facility;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could house a command
and control or communications facility for continuity of operations;
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts:
* Would provide redundancy for command and control facilities
throughout the country;
* Would benefit from the security and remoteness of site, which could
help prevent security breaches;
* In the event of a large-scale nuclear attack, underground location
could increase survivability;
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts:
* Would need significantly more infrastructure than currently
available at the site;
* Limited water, data, and communications infrastructure currently
available at the site would limit use;
* Remote location would be a challenge for continuous staffing of such
a facility.
Proposed use: Command center for unmanned aerial vehicles;
Description provided by stakeholder: The U.S. Air Force's command
center for unmanned aerial vehicles could be relocated from Creech Air
Force Base;
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: Would benefit from
security of site, which will be important in the future given that use
of unmanned aerial vehicles is likely to increase;
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts:
* High cost;
* Redundant facilities are currently located elsewhere at existing
military bases.
Proposed use: Homeland security activities;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
homeland security activities, such as a Center of Excellence, training
facility, or demonstration facility;
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts:
* Would provide the ability to test in both confined and open spaces;
* Would provide national security benefits;
* Would allow multiple tests to be carried out simultaneously;
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts:
* Remote location would be a challenge for staffing of facilities;
* Costs of additional tunneling for geophysical experiments.
Proposed use: Testing and training of the Active Denial System weapon;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
testing and training of the Active Denial System, a nonlethal,
directed-energy weapon. The weapon may be used as a crowd-control
device, which works by beaming microwave radiation, causing intense
pain--but no damage--to people;
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts:
* The tunnel would provide a controlled way to test numerous
constrained conditions with low risk;
* Due to the extensive tunnels and shielding of the surrounding rock,
multiple tests could be run;
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts:
* Potential risks associated with use of such a device represent a
significant risk of liability, as the system can be lethal in some
situations;
* Depending on the characteristics of the beam and interaction with
the tunnel, the human effects might be more damaging than in an open
environment.
Proposed use: Testing of active interrogators;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to operate
linear accelerators to characterize and test active interrogation
systems, which generate x-rays, neutrons, or other types of particles
to detect and identify nuclear or other dense materials. These systems
would generate x-rays, neutrons, or other types of particles to detect
and identify nuclear or radioactive materials or other highly dense
materials within target objects, such as shipping containers or
trailers;
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts:
* Would provide national security benefits, including combating
weapons of mass destruction and improving tracking of nuclear material;
* The shielding provided by the mountain would provide for the safety
of the testing organization and offer the necessary security given the
sensitive nature of the operation;
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts:
* Issues and costs related to transportation of materials to site;
* Some additional infrastructure would be needed.
Proposed use: Training site for first responders;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
training and testing for first responder and emergency management
activities, such as using the site for training the chemical,
biological, radiological, and high explosive units from the Las Vegas,
Nevada, metropolitan police;
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts:
* Would provide security and emergency response benefits;
* The shielding and containment offered by tunnel could facilitate
training with nuclear materials;
* Would allow responses that take place in an underground environment,
such as a subway, to be simulated;
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts:
* The enclosed space limits some testing/training options;
* Challenges with extrapolating the experience in the tunnels to other
more open or urban settings, which is where most first responses take
place.
Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and
experts.
[End of table]
Table 3: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the
Information Technology Category:
Proposed use: Public emergency communications site;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could house public
emergency communications for public entities in the western states, or
a private branch exchange switching site for emergency responders, in
the case that commercial stations in Las Vegas, Nevada, or the western
states were lost;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* The potential for high security of site could allow a facility to be
quickly established;
* Proximity to a major internet hub in Las Vegas could provide more
flexible data transmission options;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Distance from Las Vegas, where presumably most first responders
would be;
* Challenges in trying to broadcast from within a submerged rock
tunnel.
Proposed use: Secure data storage;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a data
center/colocation facility to house classified digital material from
the federal government;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would benefit from the security of site, which would meet the needs
of a facility housing classified digital material;
* Proximity to a major internet hub could provide more flexible data
transmission options;
* Would provide cost savings if classified data sets that are now
managed separately could be consolidated;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Risks and vulnerabilities should the infrastructure fail or be
attacked;
* Minimal data and communications infrastructure at the site would
need to be significantly upgraded.
Proposed use: Secure paper document storage;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
storing and protecting critical paper documents, as well as critical
electronic data, to ensure that they are not lost in an emergency;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Would benefit from
the security and remoteness of site;
Examples of challenges noted by experts: Unclear whether the physical
environment of the tunnel is appropriate for long-term document
storage.
Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and
experts.
[End of table]
Table 4: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Energy
Development or Storage Category:
Proposed use: Compressed air storage;
Description provided by stakeholder: The tunnel on the site could be
used for storage of air compressed using solar-or wind-generated power
during times of surplus electricity generation. The compressed air
would later be released through a turbine to generate electricity when
demand increases;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet need for research into compressed air storage;
* Would benefit from the controlled and controllable nature of the
site's cavities, which likely make it one of the only sites where
research like this could be performed in a relatively controlled and
modular environment;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Unclear how applicable the research would be to other sites in the
world, given the site's uniqueness;
* Permeability of the rock in the tunnel would require sealing;
* Seismic concerns may affect this use, since the tunnel would need to
be airtight.
Proposed use: Facility to support renewable energy;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
research into renewable energy sources or carbon capture;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet need for additional research on renewable energy
technologies and commercial advancement;
* Would provide abundant space for solar energy and other equipment;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* High cost to build transmission lines;
* No benefits of site over other sites for carbon capture research.
Proposed use: Geothermal energy development;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
geothermal energy development in hot dry rock;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet need for additional research into geothermal energy,
and hot dry rock in particular;
* Would benefit from the site's remoteness because of the substantial
drilling operations that would need to occur for this use;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Site is not located in an area of major geothermal activity;
* Remoteness would limit utility of site;
* High upfront costs.
Proposed use: Pumped hydroelectric energy storage;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for pumped
hydroelectric energy storage. Water would be pumped from a lower
reservoir to an upper reservoir when there is surplus electricity;
the water would then be released back through a turbine to generate
electricity when demand increases;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would provide a unique demonstration project for a technology;
* Would make use of the tunnel, which could serve as the lower
reservoir;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Access to water;
* Significant environmental impacts of application;
* Requires nearby renewable energy production.
Proposed use: Renewable energy storage laboratory;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for
research into compressed air and pumped hydroelectric energy storage.
The tunnel could serve as a pressurized chamber for compressed air
technologies or a reservoir for pumped hydroelectric storage;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet a need for research into storage of renewable energy;
* Would benefit from past site characterization efforts on water flow
through volcanic tuff;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* High costs;
* Experimental technology with limited application.
Proposed use: Solar energy development;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to
generate power from solar energy;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would benefit from the availability of land at the site;
* Would contribute to research and development of solar energy;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Ruggedness of terrain may not be well-suited for solar energy
development;
* Lack of transmission lines and distance from population base to use
electricity.
Proposed use: Strategic petroleum reserve;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a
strategic petroleum reserve for the western part of the country;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would enhance nation's energy security;
* May provide a buffer against supply fluctuations in the petroleum
market;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Tunnel is not large enough to hold a significant amount of
petroleum, given current rates of consumption;
* Transporting petroleum to the site.
Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and
experts.
[End of table]
Table 5: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Scientific
Research Category:
Proposed use: Geological laboratory and sample storage;
Description provided by stakeholder: The tunnel on the site could be
used as a geologic laboratory to manage geologic samples;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would benefit from underground areas' large storage capacity;
* Rare, valuable, or delicate samples would benefit from the site's
security;
Examples of challenges noted by experts: Remoteness of site would make
it difficult to transport and access samples.
Proposed use: Highly-infectious disease research facility;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could serve as a center
for research into highly infectious disease;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet the need for research in this area, which is of
vital interest to scientists and those concerned with national
security;
* Would benefit from remoteness and security of facility;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Remote location would present challenges to collaboration among
scientists as well as finding a skilled workforce;
* Public reaction to use.
Proposed use: Mining research and education;
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used by a
university to teach mining techniques;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would make use of the tunnel, which would provide large and
accessible entry to a subsurface environment;
* Would provide an excellent environment for mining education and
training;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Little need for mining education and training;
* Remote location would be a challenge for access to the site.
Proposed use: Scientific and university research;
Description provided by stakeholder: The tunnel and surrounding area
could house large accelerators that would be used to explore the
electronic and atomic structure of matter. This research could apply
to a variety of areas, including conversion of solar energy, battery
efficiency and storage, and pollution control;
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts:
* Would help meet a substantial research need;
* Shielding of tunnel and remote location could offer benefits to this
use;
Examples of challenges noted by experts:
* Tunnels may not offer the specific geometry needed for accelerators;
* Remote location would present challenges to collaboration;
* High cost.
Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and
experts.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: List of Experts GAO Consulted:
* Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program, Natural Resources Defense Council:
* John S. Crockett, Ph.D.
Director, Research Project Development, San Diego State University
Research Foundation:
* Pamela Drew, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, TASC:
* Donald Gibson, Ph.D.
Vice President, TASC:
* Herb Hayden, PE;
Chief Technical Officer, Southwest Solar Technologies, Inc.
* Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D.
Director, Nuclear Services, Exponent, Inc.
* Joel Kurtzman, M.S.
Executive Director, Center for a Sustainable Energy Future, Milken
Institute:
* Tom LaTourrette, Ph.D.
Senior Physical Scientist, RAND Corporation:
* Herb Lin, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board,
National Research Council of the National Academies:
* Jane C. S. Long, Ph.D.
Associate Director at Large, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
* Brian B. Looney, Ph.D.
Senior Advisory Engineer, Savannah River National Laboratory:
* S. Andrew Orrell;
Director, Nuclear Energy & Fuel Cycle Programs, Sandia National
Laboratories:
* Don Steeples, Ph.D.
McGee Distinguished Professor of Geophysics, University of Kansas:
* Ben K. Sternberg, Ph.D.
Professor, Geological & Geophysical Engineering and Electrical &
Computer Engineering, and Director, Laboratory for Advanced Subsurface
Imaging, University of Arizona:
* Darrell M. West, Ph.D.
Vice President and Director of Governance Studies, and Director of the
Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution:
* Chris G. Whipple, Ph.D.
Principal, Environ:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Description of Buildings and Facilities on the Yucca
Mountain Site:
Table 6 lists the buildings and facilities that are currently at the
Yucca Mountain site.
Table 6: Description of Buildings and Facilities at the Yucca Mountain
Site:
Facility: Change House, Exploratory Studies Facilities North Portal;
Description: Steel frame with interior shear walls;
Year built: 1997;
Dimensions: 12,250 square feet.
Facility: Switchgear Exploratory Studies Facilities North Portal;
Description: Light frame steel;
Year built: 1998;
Dimensions: 7,750 square feet.
Facility: Booster Station Pump Enclosure;
Description: Steel braced frame;
Year built: 2007;
Dimensions: 804 square feet.
Facility: Office Trailer, Management and Operating Contractor Complex;
Description: Light steel frame;
Year built: 1987;
Dimensions: 10,080 square feet.
Facility: Office Trailer, Quality Control Field Office;
Description: Light steel frame;
Year built: 1993;
Dimensions: 1,440 square feet.
Facility: Office trailer for construction team;
Description: Light steel frame;
Year built: 1983;
Dimensions: 3,600 square feet.
Facility: Booster Tank, Yucca Mountain Project water supply;
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment;
Year built: 1999;
Dimensions: 20,000 gallons.
Facility: Booster Tank, Yucca Mountain Project water supply;
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment;
Year built: 1999;
Dimensions: 20,000 gallons.
Facility: Exile Hill Water tank;
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment;
Year built: 1999;
Dimensions: 200,000 gallons.
Facility: Potable Water tank;
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment;
Year built: 1999;
Dimensions: 50,000 gallons.
Facility: Warehouse, tent #1;
Description: Sprung Instant Structures;
Year built: 1995;
Dimensions: 13,290 square feet.
Facility: Craft shops, tent #2;
Description: Rupp Instant Structure;
Year built: 1996;
Dimensions: 13,500 square feet.
Facility: Sub Surface Power Center;
Description: Substation, transmission, and distribution;
Year built: 1995;
Dimensions: 25,918 KVA.
Facility: Access roads;
Description: Roads, walks, and paved areas;
Year built: 1990;
Dimensions: 30 miles.
Facility: Sanitary sewer system;
Description: Effluent disposal system with piping;
Year built: 1996;
Dimensions: 6,092 feet.
Facility: Surface electrical system;
Description: Electrical transmission and distribution;
Year built: 1990;
Dimensions: 1 system.
Facility: Water distribution;
Description: Water supply, pumping, treatment, and distribution;
Year built: 1996;
Dimensions: 35,948 feet.
Source: GAO analysis of DOE data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy:
Department of Energy:
National Nuclear Security Administration:
Washington, DC 20585:
September 8, 2011:
Mr. Gene Aloise:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20458:
Dear Mr. Aloise:
The Department of Energy (Department) and National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) appreciates the opportunity to review the
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report, Yucca Mountain
Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related Challenges,
GAO-11-847. At the request of Senator Harry Reid, GAO was asked to
examine (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site; (2)
stakeholders' proposed alternative uses, and experts' evaluations of
those potential alternative uses; and (3) challenges, if any, in
pursuing alternative uses.
We are providing comments that we believe will help clarify and
improve the report in areas that may be confusing or misleading.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
JoAnne Parker, Director, Office of Internal Controls, at 202-586-1913.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kenneth W. Powers:
Associate Administrator for Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001:
September 8, 2011:
Jon Ludwigson:
Assistant Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Denver Field Office:
1244 Speer Blvd, Suite 800:
Denver, CO 80204-3581:
Dear Mr. Ludwigson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the September 2011 draft
of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 'Yucca
Mountain: Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related
Challenges' (GA0-11-847). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
has no significant comments regarding the technical accuracy of the
GAO statement of facts as they relate to the NRC's role or activities.
However, we have enclosed a few minor changes, which will clarify
descriptions of NRC hearing activities and will correct the use of
technical terminology. If we can be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
R. W. Borchardt:
Executive Director for Operations:
Enclosure: As stated.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Jon Ludwigson, Assistant
Director; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Kevin Bray; Lee Carroll; John Mingus;
Alison O'Neill; Anne Rhodes-Kline; Lesley Rinner; Jena Sinkfield; and
Jacqueline Wade made key contributions to this report. Also
contributing to this report were Debra Cottrell, Anne Hobson, Richard
P. Johnson, Thomas Laetz, and Jennifer Leone.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this report, we have defined the Yucca
Mountain site to include the location expected to house the potential
nuclear waste repository as well as the surrounding lands that were
withdrawn or on which rights were reserved for site investigation. Our
definition of the Yucca Mountain site includes lands that DOE did not
include in its license application for a nuclear waste repository at
Yucca Mountain.
[2] Our assessment of the site did not include an inspection of the
tunnels. Following the President's proposal to eliminate federal
funding for the Yucca Mountain Project, DOE terminated activities at
the site in 2010 and took steps to close the site, including closing
access to the tunnels and turning off utilities. As a result of these
actions, DOE determined that reopening the tunnel for a day would cost
$20,000 to $50,000.
[3] The Nevada National Security Site was formerly known as the Nevada
Test Site and is managed by DOE's National Nuclear Security
Administration. The Nevada Test and Training Range was formerly known
as the Nellis Air Force Range and is managed by the U.S. Air Force.
[4] Some technical complexities, such as DOE's assessment of how heat
from the spent nuclear fuel might affect the performance of the
repository, became the focus of years of scientific inquiry. GAO has
recently issued reports on the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-
level nuclear waste: GAO, Commercial Nuclear Waste: Effects of a
Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons
Learned, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-229]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2011); DOE Nuclear Waste: Better
Information Needed on Waste Storage at DOE Sites as a Result of Yucca
Mountain Shutdown, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-230]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2011); and Nuclear Waste Management: Key
Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository
and Two Potential Alternatives, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-48] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4,
2009).
[5] NRC has authority to authorize construction of the repository, as
well as operations and closure of a repository, which are separate
licensing actions.
[6] In April of 2011, Congress passed a continuing resolution to
provide funding for federal departments and agencies for fiscal year
2011. In that legislation, Congress appropriated $0 under the heading
"Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Nuclear Waste Disposal."
[7] The Blue Ribbon Commission also delivered interim reports, with
draft recommendations from its three subcommittees in the spring of
2011.
[8] For the purposes of this report, geophysical characteristics refer
to geology, seismology, hydrology, and other natural processes related
to the physics of the earth.
[9] Activities on these sites include nonnuclear testing of nuclear
bomb components to support DOE's stockpile stewardship
responsibilities; nuclear device inspection and storage; pilot
training, including dropping of live bombs; and testing of radar and
other military equipment.
[10] Mercury, Nevada, is a town in Nye County 65 miles northwest of
Las Vegas, Nevada. As part of the Nevada National Security Site, the
town is not accessible to the general public. As of October 1, 2010,
responsibility for security of the Yucca Mountain site has been
transferred to the National Nuclear Security Administration; see GAO-
11-229, 19.
[11] The construction of the main Yucca Mountain tunnel was estimated
at about $400 million between fiscal years 1994 and 1997, in then-year
dollars.
[12] GAO reported on the impacts of the termination of the Yucca
Mountain project in April 2011; see [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-229].
[13] Medical isotopes are materials containing radioactive atoms that
have useful applications in medical imaging and cancer treatment,
among other things.
[14] Reprocessing spent fuel requires that a reprocessing plant break
apart the used fuel assemblies and separate the reusable materials
from the remaining waste. The reusable materials are then fabricated
into recycled fuel for reactors.
[15] In its technical comments on this report, DOE noted that the Blue
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future recommended establishing
centralized interim storage for high-level waste and spent nuclear
fuel, in addition to developing a nuclear repository.
[16] The Active Denial System is a nonlethal, directed-energy, crowd-
control device which works by beaming microwave radiation, causing
intense pain--but no damage--in people.
[17] The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently holds about 700
million barrels of crude oil, was created in 1975 to help insulate the
U.S. economy from oil supply disruptions.
[18] As noted previously, DOE's investigation of the Yucca Mountain
site indicated that while the rock itself is believed to be
impermeable to water, it contains fractures where water could migrate
through it.
[19] This use also relates to the nuclear and radiological uses
category, but we categorized it into the scientific research category
because it addresses a broad range of research interests.
[20] According to an official from the Nevada Division of Water
Resources, the agency responsible for managing the state's water
resources, the state of Nevada grants water rights in part based on
whether the water will be used for a "beneficial use." This official
also noted that it may be difficult to get sufficient water rights for
an industrial use that requires a large amount of water.
[21] This includes high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel at five
sites managed by DOE and several sites that have only research
reactors that generate small amounts of waste.
[22] Medical isotopes, like all radioactive materials, decay at a
known rate. A half-life refers to the interval at which half of the
radioactivity has decayed. Isotopes with short half-lives, like those
used in medical applications, decay during shipping, requiring higher
quantities of the material to be shipped than may be needed at the
facility using them.
[23] The parties included South Carolina and Washington state; Aiken
County, South Carolina; and individuals from the state of Washington.
DOE's Hanford Site and one commercial nuclear power reactor are
located in Washington state, DOE's Savannah River Site and four
commercial nuclear power stations are located in South Carolina, and
the Savannah River Site is located in Aiken County.
[24] The four-year period in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as
amended, includes three years plus an additional year, if needed, for
review of the license application.
[25] This right-of-way (ROWR 47748) has been extended twice--in 2001
and 2007--and is now scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014. The
right-of-way does not extinguish existing valid rights--such as any
mining claims--that existed before the right-of-way was granted in
1988.
[26] Under the General Mining Act of 1872, an individual or
corporation can establish a claim to certain valuable mineral
deposits--including gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, and copper--
generally known as hardrock deposits, on public land. Upon recording a
mining claim with BLM, the claimant must pay an initial $34 location
fee and a $140 maintenance fee annually per claim; the claimant is not
required to pay royalties on any hardrock minerals extracted.
[27] This land withdrawal order, Public Land Order 6802, 55 Fed. Reg.
39,152 (Sept. 25, 1990), was extended by Public Land Order 7534, 67
Fed. Reg. 53,359 (Aug. 15, 2002), until January 31, 2010.
[28] According to Interior officials, the order withdrew the lands
from the location of new claims and entry under the mining laws and
leasing under the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing
rights.
[29] As part of its regular evaluation of mining claims on public
lands, BLM determines whether the lands are open to location under the
mining laws and potential mining activities, and whether claims were
properly filed, which is referred to as "minerals adjudication." BLM
officials told us that, prior to August 2011, they had determined that
the expiration of the land withdrawal had automatically resulted in
opening of the lands for mineral entry.
[30] For these claims, BLM accepted payment, updated its electronic
records system used to track uses of federal lands, and took other
administrative steps to acknowledge the claims. At least two of the
claims lacked complete documentation when they were submitted and BLM
provided the claimants with an opportunity to correct these errors. As
a result of the time allowed for these corrections, BLM officials told
us that they had not yet completed their review of the claims but told
us that BLM could still have determined that these two claims were
active.
[31] See 43 C.F.R. § 2091.6.
[32] BLM officials told us that parties that hold mining claims can
initiate limited mining exploration, including using earth-moving
equipment, drilling and blasting, if claimants file a notice and pay a
bond intended to guarantee that there are financial means to restore
public land after mining exploration activities are finished. These
activities are called "notice level activities" under BLM regulations.
If BLM finds the bond to be acceptable, claimants may use mechanical
equipment, including earth movers and explosives, but may not affect
more than 5 surface acres of land per year. As of July 2011, BLM
officials were not aware of any mining activities near the tunnel.
[33] The lands historically controlled by DOE were provided through
land withdrawal orders without expiration dates for specific purposes.
The lands now comprising the Nevada National Security Site were
provided to DOE's predecessor agency in 1952 for weapons testing, with
subsequent withdrawals adding additional lands to the site. The lands
now comprising the Nevada Test and Training Range were provided to
DOD's predecessor agency in 1940 for use as an aerial bombing and
gunnery range. The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999, Pub. L.
No.106-65, tit. XXX, subtit. A, § 3011(b), 113 Stat. 512, 886,
superseded the earlier withdrawals and withdrew the land from
appropriation under all public land laws for a number of defense
related activities.
[34] DOE's cost accounting procedures direct its contractor to charge
other users operating on the site for a share of the costs of managing
the site, and these costs could be high. For example, officials of the
DOE contractor in charge of the site told us that electricity costs
would be expensive--approximately double the cost of electricity
charged by a nearby provider for local service, not taking into
account the cost of supplying this electricity to the site from an
external source. This cost would reflect the expense of providing and
maintaining electrical service in the vast area of the site.
[35] Such evaluations are done by the Nellis Air Force Base's Office
of Public Partnerships, which evaluates and attempts to mitigate cases
of potential interference. In addition, U.S. Air Force officials told
us that future uses of the site would likely involve interagency
agreements between the U.S. Air Force and the entities operating on
the site.
[36] In April 2011, Congress passed a continuing resolution to provide
funding for federal departments and agencies for fiscal year 2011. In
that legislation, Congress appropriated $0 under the heading
"Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Nuclear Waste Disposal."
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
