Comments on H.R. 2586, "The Spent Fuel Act of 1979"

Gao ID: 109828 June 27, 1979

A recent House Bill would give the Department of Energy (DOE) the necessary legal authority to implement the administration's policy of accepting and taking title to spent-fuel from both domestic utilities and foreign sources and acquiring facilities for the interim storage of this spent fuel. The Federal Government and utilities assumed that spent fuel would remain at reactor sites for a short time and then be taken to a commercial reprocessing plant. However, the President decided to indefinitely defer commercial application of any technology which depends on or permits the recycling of plutonium, a nuclear weapons material, in an effort to limit further nuclear proliferation. DOE believes that unless it provides centralized interim storage, many utilities will not be able to store their spent fuel onsite beginning in 1983. The proposed change in Federal policy from reprocessing and recycling to a once-through fuel cycle has put domestic utilities in a tenuous position. GAO believes that the utilities are capable of providing any needed interim storage capacity. However, industry and utility storage and expansion plans have been delayed or are now uncertain because of the announced policy of DOE. Ways should be explored so that utilities can solve their own spent-fuel storage problem, rather than build a Federal storage facility. DOE should establish a reasonable timetable for having a method for permanent spent-fuel storage available. Without a clear decision on whether or not commercial reprocessing can resume or when a final disposal method will be available, any legislation that provides for a Federal spent-fuel storage facility is only a stop-gap measure and not a solution at all. Such action would still not resolve the uncertainty associated with the backend of the fuel cycle.



The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.