Nuclear Waste

Congress is expressing growing concern about the pace, direction, and cost of the Department of Energy's (DOE) effort to permanently dispose of radioactive waste generated by civilian nuclear power plants and DOE's nuclear weapons programs. Central to the disposal effort is the investigation of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a possible site for a geologic repository to contain the waste. The perceived lack of progress on the repository project has led to renewed debate over the need for a federal facility to store waste until the repository has been built and a reduced allotment of appropriations for the project in fiscal year 1996. This report identifies the (1) adjustments DOE made to the disposal program because of the reduced appropriations and (2) potential impediments to achieving DOE's objectives and schedule for the repository project.

GAO found that: (1) because DOE did not receive the amount of appropriations requested for fiscal year 1996, it revised the scope and objectives of the repository project with the goal of applying for a construction license in March 2002, about 5 months later than had been planned; (2) specifically, DOE: (a) curtailed most investigative activities at Yucca Mountain in favor of analyzing the information already collected to focus the remaining investigative activities on key uncertainties; (b) decided to revise its guidelines for determining if the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a repository by deleting those criteria that require compliance with specific technical conditions, such as those concerning the travel time for groundwater; and (c) will issue, in September 1998, an assessment of the expected design, performance, and cost of a repository at Yucca Mountain. This report is intended to support decisions on continuing the repository project and authorizing a waste storage facility near Yucca Mountain that may be made before DOE has determined if the site is suitable for a repository; (3) several impediments must be resolved in DOE's favor if it is to achieve the project's revised objectives and schedule; (4) it is uncertain when the Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will issue the health standards and licensing regulations, respectively, that DOE needs to determine if Yucca Mountain is a suitable repository site; (5) the absence of applicable standards and regulations creates uncertainty about whether the scope of DOE's site investigation is adequate; and (6) limitations on information that DOE is collecting in key areas, such as hydrology and the effects of the heat generated by waste on the performance of the repository and NRC's preparations to review a license application, add more uncertainty to the repository project.