Order Code IB92059
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
Updated June 5, 2002
Mark Holt
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Other Programs
Nuclear Utility Lawsuits
Nuclear Spent Fuel Legislation
Characteristics of Nuclear Waste
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Commercial Low-level Waste
Current Policy and Regulation
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Current Program
Waste Facility Schedules
Private Interim Storage
Regulatory Requirements
Alternative Technologies
Funding
Low-level Radioactive Waste
Current Policy
Regulatory Requirements
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING


IB92059
06-05-02
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
SUMMARY
Management of civilian radioactive
NWPA’s goal for loading waste into the
waste has posed difficult issues for Congress
repository was 1998, but DOE does not expect
since the beginning of the nuclear power
to open the facility until 2010 at the earliest.
industry in the 1950s. Although federal policy
Energy Secretary Abraham recommended the
is based on the premise that nuclear waste can
site to the President on February 14, 2002.
be disposed of safely, new storage and dis-
President Bush recommended the site to
posal facilities for all types of radioactive
Congress the next day, and Nevada Governor
waste have frequently been delayed or blocked
Guinn exercised his right to “veto” the site
by concerns about safety, health, and the
April 8, 2002. The veto will block further
environment.
development of the site unless Congress
passes an approval resolution that is signed by
Civilian radioactive waste ranges from
the President within 90 days of continuous
the highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear
session. The House passed a Yucca Mountain
power plants to the far-less-radioactive ura-
approval resolution (H.J.Res. 87) May 8,
nium mill tailings that result from the process-
2002, by a vote of 306-117. The Senate
ing of uranium ore. Most of the debate over
Energy and Natural Resources Committee
civilian waste disposal focuses on spent fuel
passed an approval resolution (S.J.Res. 34) on
and on “low level” waste from nuclear power
June 5, 2002, by a 13-10 vote.
plants, medical institutions, civilian research
facilities, and industry.
If the Yucca Mountain approval
resolution is enacted, DOE plans to submit a
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
construction permit application to NRC in
(NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear
2004. DOE is seeking $527 million for the
fuel in a repository in a deep geologic forma-
program in FY2003, a 40% increase from
tion that is unlikely to be disturbed for thou-
FY2002.
sands of years. NWPA established an office
in the Department of Energy (DOE) to de-
Low-level waste sites are a state respon-
velop such a repository and required the pro-
sibility under the Low-Level Radioactive
gram’s civilian costs to be covered by a fee on
Waste Policy Act of 1980. Pursuant to that
nuclear-generated electricity, paid into the
act, 10 regional compacts for disposal of low-
Nuclear Waste Fund. Amendments to NWPA
level waste have been approved by Congress.
in 1987 restricted DOE’s repository site stud-
ies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Only three commercial low-level waste
sites are currently operating, in the states of
DOE is studying numerous scientific
South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. The
issues in determining the suitability of Yucca
Washington facility is accepting waste just
Mountain for a nuclear waste repository,
from within the Northwest and Rocky Moun-
which must be licensed by the Nuclear
tain regional compacts, and the Utah site
Regulatory Commission (NRC). Questions
accepts only the least-concentrated class of
about the site include the likelihood of earth-
low-level waste, although it has received
quakes, volcanoes, groundwater contamina-
preliminary approval to accept the other major
tion, and human intrusion.
low-level waste classes as well.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

IB92059
06-05-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
President Bush recommended to Congress February 15 that a license application be
submitted to NRC to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. As
allowed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Nevada Governor Guinn on April 8 sent Congress
a notice of disapproval for the Yucca Mountain site. That so-called “state veto” will block
further action at the site unless a congressional resolution to approve the site is enacted into
law within 90 days of continuous session. Senator Bingaman introduced the approval
resolution in the Senate April 9 (S.J.Res. 34), and Representative Barton introduced it in the
House April 11 (H.J.Res. 87). The House Committee on Energy and Commerce approved
H.J.Res. 87 (H.Rept. 107-425) on April 25 by a 41-6 vote, and the resolution was approved
by the House, 306-117, on May 8. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
approved S.J.Res. 34 by a 13-10 vote June 5. (For details on the special congressional
procedures for considering the approval resolution, see CRS Report RL31135,
Nuclear
Waste Repository Siting: Expedited Procedures for Congressional Approval.)
The Administration’s FY2003 budget request, submitted to Congress February 4, seeks
$527 million for the DOE civilian waste disposal program, a 40% boost over FY2002. The
increased budget is intended to pay for preparation of a 10,000-page Yucca Mountain
repository construction permit application, which DOE expects to submit to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) in FY2004 – a one-year delay from the previous schedule.
The additional funds are also needed for detailed repository design work, repository
performance studies, and transportation planning, according to DOE. Despite the delay in
submitting a construction permit application, DOE contends that it can still begin receiving
waste at the site by 2010 as previously scheduled.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Nuclear waste has sometimes been called the Achilles’ heel of the nuclear power
industry; much of the controversy over nuclear power centers on the lack of a disposal
system for the highly radioactive spent fuel that must be regularly removed from operating
reactors. As a result, progress on nuclear waste disposal is widely considered a prerequisite
for any future growth of nuclear power.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and 1987 amendments, the
Department of Energy (DOE) is studying the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for
housing a deep underground repository for spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive
waste. The State of Nevada has strongly opposed DOE’s efforts on the grounds that the site
is unsafe, pointing to potential volcanic activity, earthquakes, water infiltration, underground
flooding, nuclear chain reactions, and fossil fuel and mineral deposits that might encourage
future human intrusion.
CRS-1

IB92059
06-05-02
However, DOE contends that the evidence so far indicates that Yucca Mountain is likely
to prove suitable and that studies of the site should continue. A “viability assessment” issued
by the Department December 18, 1998, concluded that “no show stoppers have been
identified to date at Yucca Mountain.” A Draft Environmental Impact Statement completed
by DOE in July 1999 reiterated those findings, recommending that the project proceed as
planned [http://www.ymp.gov/timeline/eis/deis.htm]. The planned Yucca Mountain
repository is not scheduled to open until 2010 at the earliest, more than a decade later than
the 1998 goal specified by NWPA. (For more information on the Yucca Mountain scientific
studies, see CRS Report RL30190, Proposed High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository: Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Progress
.)
The safety of geologic disposal of highly radioactive waste, as planned in the United
States, depends largely on the characteristics of the rock formations from which a repository
would be excavated. Because many geologic formations are believed to have remained
undisturbed for millions of years, it appeared technically feasible to isolate radioactive
materials from the environment until they decayed to safe levels. “There is no scientific or
technical reason to think that a satisfactory geological repository cannot be built,” according
to the National Research Council.
But, as the Yucca Mountain controversy indicates, scientific confidence about the
concept of deep geologic disposal has turned out to be difficult to apply to specific sites.
Every high-level waste site that has been proposed by DOE and its predecessor agencies has
faced allegations or discovery of unacceptable flaws, such as groundwater flow or earthquake
vulnerability, that could release radioactivity into the environment. Much of the problem
results from the inherent uncertainty involved in predicting waste site performance for the
10,000-year period that nuclear waste is to be isolated. Opponents of geologic disposal have
urged greater emphasis on new or alternative technologies that might allow entirely different
approaches to high-level radioactive waste management.
Other Programs. Other types of civilian radioactive waste have also generated public
controversy, particularly low-level radioactive waste, which is produced by nuclear power
plants, medical institutions, industrial operations, and research activities. Civilian low-level
waste currently is disposed of in large trenches at sites in South Carolina and Washington
state, and the Washington facility does not accept waste from outside its region. The lowest-
concentration class of low-level radioactive waste is also accepted by a commercial disposal
facility in Utah, which is applying for a license to receive all major classes of low-level
waste. Threats by states to close their disposal facilities led to congressional authorization
of regional compacts for low-level waste disposal in 1985, although no new sites have been
opened by any of the 10 authorized disposal compacts.
Nuclear Utility Lawsuits
Nuclear utilities, which pay for most of the high-level waste disposal program through
a fee on nuclear power, have sued DOE for failing to begin the removal of spent nuclear fuel
from storage at commercial reactors by January 31, 1998, the deadline established by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
CRS-2

IB92059
06-05-02
In response to a utility lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled November 14, 1997, that DOE would be liable for unspecified damages to
nuclear utilities if it missed the 1998 deadline. DOE was ordered to work out a remedy with
the utilities under the procedures of the standard disposal contract signed by all nuclear
utilities pursuant to NWPA.
In the first set of rulings on breach-of-contract suits filed by several utilities, the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims decreed on October 29, 1998, that DOE must pay fuel storage costs
for three closed commercial reactors. Those costs are to be determined by future trials; the
three utilities are claiming damages of $2.4 billion. Damage claims were denied to Northern
States Power by another Court of Federal Claims judge on April 6, 1999, but that ruling was
reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 31, 2000. The
Appeals court decision cleared the way for nuclear power companies to proceed with
lawsuits in the Court of Federal Claims against DOE. Industry officials contend that total
damages for missing the 1998 disposal deadline could eventually reach tens of billions of
dollars, assuming that no disposal ever takes place.
DOE has been negotiating with various reactor owners since 1999 on the missed nuclear
waste deadline and reached its first settlement agreement with a nuclear utility, PECO
Energy Co., on July 19, 2000. The agreement allows PECO to keep up to $80 million in
nuclear waste fee revenues during the next 10 years and may result in DOE’s taking title to
waste and storage facilities at PECO’s Peach Bottom plant in Pennsylvania. In return, PECO
agreed not to sue DOE over the missed disposal deadline. Several utilities expressed
opposition to the agreement, but DOE said others are considering similar settlements.
Although some of the delays have been blamed on poor program management, DOE
contends that tight funding has been a major barrier. DOE cannot spend the nuclear
industry’s mandatory waste fees without congressional approval, and only about half the total
fees collected have been appropriated to the program so far. However, some surplus in the
fund may be necessary to pay future nuclear waste disposal costs after today’s nuclear plants
have ceased operation.
Nuclear Spent Fuel Legislation
President Bush recommended the Yucca Mountain site to Congress on February 15,
2002, and Nevada Governor Guinn submitted a notice of disapproval, or “state veto,” April
8, 2002, as allowed by NWPA. The state veto will block further repository development at
Yucca Mountain unless a resolution approving the site is passed by Congress and signed into
law within 90 days of continuous session.
Senator Bingaman introduced the approval resolution in the Senate April 9, 2002
(S.J.Res. 34), and Representative Barton introduced it in the House April 11, 2002 (H.J.Res.
87). The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce approved H.J.Res. 87 on April 23 by a 24-2 vote, and the full Committee
approved the measure two days later, 41-6. The resolution was passed by the House May 8,
2002, by a vote of 306-117. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
approved S.J.Res. 34 by a 13-10 vote June 5, 2002. (For more about the special procedures
that will be used to consider the approval resolution, see CRS Report RL31135, Nuclear
CRS-3

IB92059
06-05-02
Waste Repository Siting: Expedited Procedures for Congressional Approval, September 28,
2001.)
The nuclear industry and its supporters have urged Congress to require DOE to build
an interim storage facility that could begin receiving spent fuel from nuclear power plants
as soon after the missed 1998 deadline as possible. Such a facility, consisting of storage
casks on concrete pads or in surface-based bunkers, could reduce spent fuel storage costs,
increase safety, and fulfill the federal government’s legal obligations, supporters contend (see
NEI perspective at [http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=14]).
But environmental, anti-nuclear power, and other groups warn that interim storage
would result in earlier transportation of unprecedented quantities of nuclear waste; they
contend it would be safer to leave the waste in place until a permanent solution can be found
( s e e N u c l e a r In f o r m a t i o n a n d R e s o u r c e S e r v i c e p e r s p e c t i v e a t
[http://www.nirs.org/fctsht.htm]). (For more on the controversy over nuclear waste
transportation, see CRS Report 97-403, Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel.)
Omnibus energy legislation introduced July 27, 2001 (H.R. 4) would have taken all
expenditures and receipts of the Nuclear Waste Fund off-budget; however, the provision was
struck by the rule for floor debate. In analyzing the same provision in a House Commerce
Committee-passed nuclear waste bill in the 106th Congress (H.R. 45), the Congressional
Budget Office concluded that it “could ease the way for increased federal spending by
exempting such spending from budgetary controls.” The nuclear industry and other program
supporters have long contended that funding constraints have slowed the program’s progress.
Opponents of the program, particularly the State of Nevada, contend that increased spending
should not be directed to the Yucca Mountain site, which they view as fundamentally flawed.
As passed by the House August 2, 2001, H.R. 4 would establish a spent nuclear fuel
“recycling” research and development program, for which $10 million would be authorized
for FY2002 and “such sums as necessary” for the following two years. The provision is
based on language in an energy bill (H.R. 2460) ordered reported by the House Science
Committee July 18, 2001. Supporters of such research contend that new technologies could
reduce the volume and long-term toxicity of nuclear waste, particularly by destroying
plutonium in the waste through nuclear fission. Opponents note that such treatment requires
reprocessing of spent fuel to at least partially separate its major constituents, such as uranium
and plutonium, and that separated plutonium could be used for nuclear explosives. Such a
program, opponents contend, could undermine U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts aimed
at discouraging other nations from separating plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. H.R. 4
specifies that technologies pursued by the program should be “proliferation-resistant.”
Omnibus energy legislation being considered by the Senate (S. 517) also addresses some
aspects of the nuclear waste issue. An amendment to S. 517 by Senator Domenici, approved
March 13, 2002, would prevent “irreversible action relating to the disposal of spent nuclear
fuel” until Congress had determined whether to permanently bury the spent fuel as waste or
to extract plutonium and uranium from the spent fuel to make new nuclear fuel. The
amendment also would establish a nuclear waste research program similar to that in H.R. 4.
Similar provisions are included in a nuclear energy bill (S. 472) introduced by Senator
Domenici March 7, 2001, and an omnibus bill (S. 388) introduced by Senator Murkowski
February 26, 2001.
CRS-4

IB92059
06-05-02
In the 106th Congress, comprehensive legislation to rewrite NWPA and require
construction of an interim storage facility near Yucca Mountain was approved by the House
Commerce Committee April 21, 1999, by a vote of 40-6 (H.R. 45, H.Rept. 106-155). In
addition to mandating interim storage, the bill would have modified the licensing standards
for a permanent underground repository, revised the program’s funding mechanism, and
authorized DOE to take title to spent fuel stored at commercial reactor sites.
The Clinton Administration’s primary stated objection to H.R. 45 and similar bills
introduced in the previous two Congresses was that nuclear waste should not be stored
temporarily near Yucca Mountain before the site had been found suitable for permanent
underground disposal. Supporters of the interim storage legislation contend that the
December 1998 viability assessment, which found “no show stoppers” at Yucca Mountain,
should have been sufficient to overcome the Clinton Administration’s major concerns.
However, Administration officials subsequently indicated that more study was necessary
before the veto threat would be lifted. The Clinton Administration also threatened a veto
over provisions in the bills that would have given NRC sole authority to set radiation
protection standards for the repository, eliminating EPA’s role.
Faced with continued Clinton Administration opposition to interim storage at Yucca
Mountain during the 106th Congress, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
set aside a comprehensive nuclear waste bill that had been referred to the panel (S. 608) and
instead reported an original measure (S. 1287, S.Rept. 106-98) that concentrated on storage
at reactor sites. Under S. 1287 as approved by the Committee, DOE would have been
authorized to take title to spent fuel at reactor sites and to begin receiving waste at Yucca
Mountain as soon as possible after NRC granted a construction permit for a permanent
underground repository. In addition, the Committee-passed bill included the elimination of
EPA’s authority to set environmental standards for the repository, drawing continued veto
threats.
On the Senate floor, the provision authorizing DOE to take title to waste stored at
reactor sites drew substantial opposition from a number of states with nuclear power plants.
Opponents of the “take title” provision contended that once nuclear utilities had handed their
waste over to DOE, the pressure to continue progress on a permanent repository would
decrease, and the spent fuel could remain at reactor sites indefinitely. To ease those
concerns, the provision was dropped from the bill before the final vote. Supporters of the
legislation attempted to address the Clinton Administration’s objections to the elimination
of EPA’s standard-setting authority by instead prohibiting EPA from issuing final standards
for the repository before June 1, 2001, but the Administration responded with a further veto
threat February 8, 2000. With those changes, the Senate passed S. 1287 February 10, 2000,
by a vote of 64-34. The House passed S. 1287 without amendment on March 22, 2000, by
a vote of 253-167, sending it to the President’s desk.
As promised, President Clinton vetoed the bill April 25, 2000. The Senate attempted
to override the veto on May 2, 2000, but fell three votes short of the necessary two-thirds
majority (64-35).
CRS-5

IB92059
06-05-02
Characteristics of Nuclear Waste
Radioactive waste is a term that encompasses a broad range of material with widely
varying characteristics. Some is barely radioactive and safe to handle, while other types are
intensely hot in both temperature and radioactivity. Some decays to safe levels of
radioactivity in a matter of days or weeks, while other types will remain dangerous for
thousands of years. Major types of radioactive waste are generally defined by DOE and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as follows:
Spent nuclear fuel. Fuel rods that have been permanently withdrawn from a nuclear
reactor because they can no longer efficiently sustain a nuclear chain reaction (although they
contain uranium and plutonium that could be extracted through reprocessing to make new
fuel). By far the most radioactive type of civilian nuclear waste, spent fuel contains extremely
hot but relatively short-lived fission products (fragments of uranium and other fissile
elements) as well as long-lived radionuclides such as plutonium, which remains dangerously
radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
High-level waste. Highly radioactive residue created by spent fuel reprocessing (almost
entirely for defense purposes in the United States). High-level waste contains most of the
radioactive fission products of spent fuel, but most of the uranium and plutonium usually has
been removed for re-use. Enough long-lived radioactive elements remain, however, to
require isolation for 10,000 years or more.
Transuranic waste. Relatively low-activity waste that contains more than a certain level
of long-lived elements heavier than uranium (primarily plutonium). Shielding may be
required for handling of some types of TRU waste. In the United States, transuranic waste
is generated almost entirely by nuclear weapons production processes. Because of the
plutonium, long-term isolation is required.
Low-level waste. Radioactive waste not classified as spent fuel, high-level waste, TRU
waste, or byproduct material such as uranium mill tailings (below). Four classes of low-level
waste have been established by NRC, ranging from least radioactive and shortest-lived to the
longest-lived and most radioactive. Although some types of low-level waste can be more
radioactive than some types of high-level waste, in general low-level waste contains
relatively low amounts of radioactivity and decays relatively quickly. Low-level waste
disposal facilities cannot accept material that exceeds NRC concentration limits.
Uranium mill tailings. Sand-like residues remaining from the processing of uranium
ore. Such tailings have very low radioactivity but extremely large volumes that can pose a
hazard, particularly from radon emissions or groundwater contamination.
Mixed waste. High-level, low-level or TRU waste that contains hazardous non-
radioactive waste. Such waste poses serious institutional problems, because the radioactive
portion is regulated by DOE or NRC under the Atomic Energy Act, while EPA regulates the
non-radioactive elements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
CRS-6

IB92059
06-05-02
Spent Nuclear Fuel
When spent nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, usually after several years of power
production, it is very hot and highly radioactive. The spent fuel is in the form of fuel
assemblies, which consist of arrays of metal-clad fuel rods 12-15 feet long.
A fresh fuel rod, which emits relatively little radioactivity, contains uranium that has
been slightly enriched in the isotope U-235. But after nuclear fission has taken place in the
reactor, many of the uranium atoms in the fuel rods have been split into a variety of highly
radioactive fission products; others have absorbed neutrons to become radioactive plutonium,
some of which has also split into fission products. Radioactive gases are also contained in
the spent fuel rods. Newly withdrawn spent fuel assemblies are stored in large pools of water
adjacent to the reactors to keep them from overheating and to protect workers from radiation.
The approximately 45,000 metric tons of spent fuel discharged from U.S. commercial
nuclear reactors through 2001 is currently stored at about 70 power plant sites around the
nation. (Some is also held at two small central storage facilities.) As long as nuclear power
continues to be generated, the amounts stored at plant sites will continue to grow until an
interim storage facility or a permanent repository can be opened — or until alternative
treatment and disposal technology is developed.
A typical large commercial nuclear reactor discharges an average of 20-30 metric tons
of spent fuel per year — about 2,000 metric tons annually for the entire U.S. nuclear power
industry. As a result, the total amount of spent fuel is expected to reach 60,000 metric tons
by 2010, the earliest feasible date for opening the Yucca Mountain repository, and almost
80,000 metric tons by 2020.
New storage capacity at nuclear plant sites will obviously be required if DOE is unable
to begin accepting waste into its disposal system for another 8 years. Most utilities are
expected to construct new dry storage capacity for their older fuel. On-site dry storage
facilities currently in operation or planned typically consist of metal casks or concrete
modules. NRC has determined that spent fuel could be stored safely at reactor sites for up
to 100 years.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have heightened concerns about the
vulnerability of stored spent fuel. Concerns have been raised that an aircraft crash into a
reactor’s pool area could drain the pool and cause the spent fuel inside to overheat. A report
released by NRC January 17, 2001, found that overheating could cause the zirconium alloy
cladding of spent fuel to catch fire and release hazardous amounts of radioactivity, although
it characterized the probability of such a fire as low. Nuclear industry representatives
contend that the several hours required for uncovered spent fuel to heat up enough to catch
fire would allow ample time for alternative measures to cool the fuel.
Commercial Low-level Waste
Low-level waste disposed of in commercial sites makes up about a third of all
accumulated low-level waste in the United States; the remaining two-thirds has been
generated by DOE activities and sent to DOE-owned disposal sites. About 320,000 cubic
feet of commercial low-level waste was shipped to disposal sites in 1997. The volume of
CRS-7

IB92059
06-05-02
commercial low-level radioactive waste peaked in 1980 and fell sharply in the 1990s,
primarily because of escalating disposal fees.
The vast majority of commercial low-level waste typically consists of the least
hazardous “Class A” waste. In 1997, nuclear utilities generated nearly two-thirds of the
volume of commercially disposed low-level waste, industrial activities accounted for about
a fourth, government for less than 10%, academic activities for about 2%, and medical
institutions for less than 1%, according to DOE. About 85% of the radioactivity came from
utility waste. Nuclear utilities’ share of total volume and radioactivity is expected to rise
when current reactors are decommissioned, because significant numbers of components have
become radioactive during operation and will be disposed of as low-level waste — some of
it relatively long-lived.
Current Policy and Regulation
Spent fuel and high-level waste are a federal responsibility, while states are authorized
to develop disposal facilities for commercial low-level waste. In general, disposal
requirements have grown more stringent over the years, in line with overall national
environmental policy and heightened concerns about the hazards of radioactivity.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Current Program. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, P.L. 97-425)
established a system for selecting a geologic repository for the permanent disposal of up to
70,000 metric tons (77,000 tons) of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste. DOE’s Office
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) was created to carry out the
program. The Nuclear Waste Fund, consisting of a fee on commercial nuclear power and
federal contributions for emplacement of high-level defense waste, was established to pay
for the program. DOE was required to select three candidate sites for the first national
high-level waste repository.
After much controversy over DOE’s implementation of NWPA, the Act was
substantially modified by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 (Title IV,
Subtitle A of P.L. 100-203, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987). Under the
amendments, the only candidate site DOE may consider for a permanent high-level waste
repository is at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. If that site proves unsuitable, DOE must return
to Congress for further instructions.
The 1987 amendments also authorized construction of a monitored retrievable storage
(MRS) facility to store spent fuel and prepare it for delivery to the repository. But because
of fears that the MRS would reduce the need to open the permanent repository and become
a de facto repository itself, the law forbids DOE from selecting an MRS site until
recommending to the President that a repository be constructed (which is currently not
scheduled to take place until FY2002) although the search for an MRS site may begin at any
time. In addition, construction of an MRS facility may not begin until NRC has granted a
construction license for the permanent repository, and construction or operation of the MRS
must cease if repository construction is interrupted. No more than 10,000 metric tons of
CRS-8

IB92059
06-05-02
waste may be stored at the MRS before the permanent repository begins operating, and no
more than 15,000 metric tons thereafter.
Waste Facility Schedules. DOE’s most recent nuclear waste program schedule
calls for the repository to begin operating by 2010 — 12 years later than the law’s target
date. According to a draft Civilian Radioactive Waste Program Plan issued in May 1996, the
2010 opening can be achieved despite severe budget cuts imposed for FY1996.
The major activity at the Yucca Mountain site is the excavation of an “exploratory
studies facility” (ESF) with a 25-foot-diameter tunnel boring machine. The ESF consists
primarily of a five-mile tunnel with ramps leading to the surface at its north and south ends.
The tunnel boring machine began excavating the north ramp in October 1994 and broke
through to the surface at the south entrance April 25, 1997. Underground studies are being
conducted at several side alcoves that have been excavated off the main tunnel.
DOE completed a “viability assessment” of Yucca Mountain in December 1998, which
was followed by a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project in July 1999,
which was updated in May 2001. DOE issued a preliminary site suitability evaluation
August 21, 2001, that found Yucca Mountain could meet EPA and NRC requirements.
Energy Secretary Abraham on February 14, 2002, recommended to the President that
the Yucca Mountain project go forward. At the same time, the Secretary submitted a final
EIS and other supporting materials (for details, see the Yucca Mountain Project home page
at [http//www.ymp.gov]). As noted previously, President Bush recommended the Yucca
Mountain site to Congress the day after the Secretary’s recommendation, and Nevada
Governor Guinn subsequently submitted a notice of disapproval, or “state veto,” as allowed
by NWPA. Congress is now considering an approval resolution to overturn the state veto
under expedited procedures required by NWPA; the House passed its version of the
resolution (H.J.Res. 87) May 8, 2002.
If the state veto is overturned, DOE plans to submit a license application to NRC in
2004 – a year later than previously scheduled. DOE then hopes to receive an NRC
construction permit by 2006 and a license to begin receiving waste at the repository by 2010.
The repository is to be permanently closed in 2116, according to the DOE viability
assessment.
A December report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) had called on the Energy
Secretary to delay recommending Yucca Mountain to the President until more of the research
needed for a license application to NRC could be completed. The report noted that DOE’s
main contractor on the Yucca Mountain project does not expect the license application to be
ready before January 2006. GAO concluded that “on the bases of a 4-year licensing period
and a 5-year period for initial construction, the repository might not be ready to open until
about 2015 if DOE does not apply for a license until January 2006.”1 However, GAO
1 U.S. General Accounting Office. Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of
the Yucca Mountain Repository Project.
GAO-02-191. December 2001.
CRS-9

IB92059
06-05-02
recently noted that DOE has told its primary contractor “to prepare a new plan for submitting
a license application to NRC by December 2004.”2
The DOE Total System Life Cycle Cost Report, issued in May 2001, estimates that the
entire program will cost $49.3 billion (in constant 2000 dollars) from 2001-2119. The report
says the program spent $6.7 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars through FY2000.
Private Interim Storage. Delays in the federal nuclear waste program have
prompted interest in a private interim storage facility. A utility consortium signed an
agreement with a Utah Indian tribe on December 27, 1996, to develop a private spent fuel
storage facility on tribal land. The Private Fuel Storage (PFS) consortium submitted a
license application to NRC June 25, 1997. Project officials told NRC in March 1997 that the
dry-cask storage facility would be located on 98 acres of the sparsely populated reservation
of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, about 70 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
The initial lease for the site would run for 25 years, with possible renewal for another 25
years. The facility’s capacity would be 40,000 metric tons, available to any U.S. nuclear
utility in addition to the eight consortium members. The facility, strongly opposed by the
State of Utah, would not require DOE assistance or congressional or state approval. PFS
officials have projected that operations could begin as early as 2004.
Regulatory Requirements. NWPA requires that high-level waste facilities be
licensed by the NRC in accordance with general standards issued by EPA. Under the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486), EPA was required to write new standards specifically for
Yucca Mountain. NWPA also requires the repository to meet general siting guidelines
prepared by DOE and approved by NRC. Transportation of waste to storage and disposal
sites is regulated by NRC and the Department of Transportation.
NRC’s licensing requirements for Yucca Mountain, at 10 CFR 63, require compliance
with EPA’s standards (described below) and establish procedures that DOE must follow in
seeking a repository license. For example, DOE must conduct a repository performance
confirmation program that would indicate whether natural and man-made systems were
functioning as intended and assure that other assumptions about repository conditions were
accurate.
DOE’s repository siting guidelines, at 10 CFR 960, developed with NRC concurrence,
establish the criteria that the Secretary of Energy used in determining the suitability of the
Yucca Mountain site. DOE issued new siting guidelines November 14, 2001, that prompted
the State of Nevada to file a court challenge on December 17, 2001. The new guidelines
replace numerous individual disqualifying conditions, such as a high rate of water movement
through the repository, with an analysis of “total system performance,” in which previously
unacceptable conditions could be mitigated by other factors. The Nevada lawsuit contends
that the new guidelines allow too much reliance on waste packages and other engineered
barriers, rather than natural geologic features, to prevent radioactive releases from the
repository.
2 Prepared testimony of Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and Environment Team, U.S.
General Accounting Office, to Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, April 18, 2002.
CRS-10

IB92059
06-05-02
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486) made a number of changes in the nuclear
waste regulatory system, particularly that EPA must issue new environmental standards
specifically for the Yucca Mountain repository site. General EPA repository standards
previously issued and subsequently revised no longer apply to Yucca Mountain. DOE and
NRC had complained that some of EPA’s general standards might be impossible or
impractical to meet.
The new standards, which would limit the radiation dose that the repository could
impose on individual members of the public, must be consistent with the findings of a study
by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which was issued August 1, 1995. The NAS
study recommends that the Yucca Mountain environmental standards establish a limit on risk
to individuals near the repository, rather than setting specific limits for the releases of
radioactive material or on radioactive doses, as under previous EPA standards. The NAS
study also examined the potential for human intrusion into the repository and found no
scientific basis for predicting human behavior thousands of years into the future.
Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act, EPA published its proposed Yucca Mountain
radiation protection standards on August 27, 1999. The proposal would have limited annual
radiation doses to 15 millirems for the “reasonably maximally exposed individual,” and to
4 millirems from groundwater exposure, for the first 10,000 years of repository operation.
EPA calculated that its standard would result in an annual risk of fatal cancer for the
maximally exposed individual of seven chances in a million. The nuclear industry criticized
the EPA proposal as being unnecessarily stringent, particularly the groundwater standard.
On the other hand, environmental groups contended that the 10,000-year standard proposed
by EPA was too short, because DOE had projected that radioactive releases from the
repository would peak well after that period.
EPA issued its final Yucca Mountain standards on June 6, 2001. The final standards
include most of the major provisions of the proposed version, including the 15 millirem
overall exposure limit and the 4 millirem groundwater limit. The most significant changes
in the final rules were to require that compliance be demonstrated about one mile closer to
the repository and to double the amount of groundwater that would be analyzed. Despite the
Department’s opposition to the EPA standards, DOE’s preliminary site suitability evaluation
indicates that the Yucca Mountain site would be able to meet them. NRC revised its
repository regulations September 7, 2001, to conform to the EPA standards.
Alternative Technologies. Several alternatives to the geologic disposal of spent
fuel have been studied by DOE and its predecessor agencies, as well as technologies that
might make waste disposal easier. However, most of these technologies involve large
technical obstacles, uncertain costs, and potential public opposition.
Among the primary long-term disposal alternatives to geologic repositories are disposal
in deep ocean trenches and transport into space, neither of which is currently being studied
by DOE. Other technologies have been studied that, while probably not replacing geologic
disposal, might make geologic disposal safer and more predictable. Chief among these is the
concept of “burning” long-lived plutonium and other radionuclides in a special nuclear
reactor or particle accelerator, converting them to faster-decaying fission products.
CRS-11

IB92059
06-05-02
Funding. DOE is seeking $524.7 million for the civilian nuclear waste program in
FY2003, a 40% increase over the program’s comparable FY2002 appropriation of $375.0
million, according to the House Appropriations Committee.
The FY2003 budget request anticipates that sharply higher annual funding will continue
as the project moves toward construction and operation. Continuation of site studies and
preparation of the 10,000-page construction permit application are budgeted for most of the
requested increase. A more than 400% boost in funding for transportation and waste
acceptance will be required to help prepare for shipments in 2010, according to the DOE
budget justification. One of the FY2003 goals of the waste transportation program is to
develop final policies and procedures for providing technical assistance to states through
which nuclear waste will be shipped.
Table 1. DOE Civilian Spent Fuel Management Funding
(in millions of current dollars)
Program
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
--
--
Approp.
Approp.
Request
Yucca Mountain
313.0
296.9
424.9
--
--
Waste acceptance, storage,
2.7
4.1
17.1
--
--
transportation
Program integration
12.1
18.0
19.7
--
--
Program direction
64.9
58.3
65.3
--
--
Total
402.6*
375.0
524.7
--
--
Source of Funding
Nuclear Waste Fund approp.
192.9
95.0
209.7
--
--
Defense waste appropriations
199.7
280.0
315.0
--
--
Sources: House Appropriations Committee, DOE FY2002 Congressional Budget Request, Appropriations
reports, Congressional Record. Subcategories do add exactly to the total because of adjustments made after
submission of the Administration budget request.
*includes $10 million transferred from interim storage fund
As Table 1 indicates, about 40% of the FY2003 funding request for the program would
come from the Nuclear Waste Fund, with the rest coming from the defense waste account.
Although nuclear utilities pay fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund to cover the disposal costs of
civilian nuclear spent fuel, DOE cannot spend the money in the fund until it is appropriated
by Congress. Through the end of FY2000, utility nuclear waste fees and interest totaled
$15.2 billion, of which about $5.5 billion had been disbursed to the waste disposal program,
according to DOE, leaving a balance of $9.6 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Another
$2.3 billion was owed by utilities for spent fuel generated before 1983. The nuclear waste
program’s appropriations for FY1983-FY2000 total about $6.7 billion, according to DOE,
including $1.2 billion for defense waste disposal.
CRS-12

IB92059
06-05-02
Low-level Radioactive Waste
Current Policy. Disposal of low-level radioactive waste, which generally consists of
low concentrations of relatively short-lived radionuclides, is a state responsibility under the
1980 Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and 1985 amendments. Most states have
joined congressionally approved interstate compacts to handle low-level waste disposal,
while others are developing single-state disposal sites. Under the 1985 amendments, the
nation’s three (at that time) operating commercial low-level waste disposal facilities could
start refusing to accept waste from outside their regional interstate compacts after the end of
1992. One site is currently using that authority, leaving only one open to nationwide disposal
of all major types of low-level waste. A third site, in Utah, has since become available
nationwide for most Class A low-level waste. The Utah site’s operator, Envirocare, applied
to the State on November 1, 1999, for a license amendment to accept Class B and C waste
as well. Utah regulators announced preliminary approval of the request January 2, 2001.
Despite the 1992 deadline, no new disposal sites have been opened. A facility in
California’s Ward Valley to serve California, Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota
received a state operating permit in 1993. However, the site is on federal land, which the
Department of the Interior would not transfer to the state as had originally been expected.
As a result, California Governor Davis established an advisory committee in June 1999 to
explore alternatives to the Ward Valley disposal site.
Texas is to develop a disposal site under a recently approved compact with Maine and
Vermont. Legislation providing congressional consent to the compact was signed by
President Clinton September 20, 1998 (P.L. 105-236). However, the future of the new
compact’s disposal program was thrown into uncertainty by the October 22, 1998, rejection
of a proposed disposal site near Sierra Blanca, Texas, by the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission.
The Midwestern Compact voted June 26, 1997, to halt development of a disposal
facility in Ohio. Nebraska regulators rejected a proposed waste site for the Central Compact
December 21, 1998, drawing a lawsuit from five utilities in the region. Most other regional
disposal compacts and individual states that have not joined compacts are making little
progress toward finding disposal sites, largely because of public opposition and the continued
availability of the disposal facilities in South Carolina and, for most Class A waste, Utah.
“Presently, no state or compact is trying to identify a site for a disposal facility,” according
to a September 1999 report by the General Accounting Office.
Only one disposal facility, at Barnwell, S.C., is currently accepting all Class A, B and
C low-level waste from most states. The Barnwell facility had stopped accepting waste from
outside the Southeast Compact at the end of June 1994. Then the Southeast Compact
Commission in May 1995 twice rejected a South Carolina proposal to open the Barnwell site
to waste generators outside the Southeast and to bar access to North Carolina until that state
opened a new regional disposal facility, as required by the Compact. The rejection of those
proposals led the South Carolina General Assembly vote in 1995 to withdraw from the
Southeast Compact and begin accepting waste at Barnwell from all states but North Carolina.
North Carolina withdrew from the Southeast Compact July 26, 1999, a move that prompted
a lawsuit from the Compact on July 10, 2000.
CRS-13

IB92059
06-05-02
South Carolina joined the Atlantic Compact (formerly the Northeast Compact) with
Connecticut and New Jersey on July 1, 2000. Under the compact, South Carolina can limit
the use of the Barnwell facility to the three compact members. A state law enacted in June
2000 phases out acceptance of non-compact waste through 2008.
The only other existing disposal facility for all three major classes of low-level waste
is at Hanford, Washington. Controlled by the Northwest Compact, the Hanford site will
continue taking waste from the neighboring Rocky Mountain Compact under a contract.
States barred from access to existing disposal facilities are likely to require low-level waste
generators to store their waste on site until new disposal sites are available, particularly for
Class B and C waste. However, the Envirocare site in Utah could provide nationwide
disposal if its Class B and C license is approved.
Regulatory Requirements. Licensing of commercial low-level waste facilities is
carried out under the Atomic Energy Act by NRC or by “agreement states” with regulatory
programs approved by NRC. NRC regulations governing low-level waste licenses must
conform to general environmental protection standards and radiation protection guidelines
issued by EPA. Transportation of low-level waste is jointly regulated by NRC and the
Department of Transportation.
Most states considering new or expanded low-level waste disposal facilities, including
Texas, California, and Utah are “agreement states” — states authorized by NRC to license
the handling of low-level waste and certain other radioactive materials. Most states, both
agreement and non-agreement, have established substantially stricter technical requirements
for low-level waste disposal than NRC’s, such as banning shallow land burial and requiring
concrete bunkers and other engineered barriers. NRC would issue the licenses in
non-agreement states.
LEGISLATION
P.L. 107-66, H.R. 2311
Energy and Water Development Appropriations for FY2002. Provides funding for DOE
civilian nuclear waste program. Introduced June 26, 2001, as an original measure from the
Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 107-112). Passed Senate July 19, 2001 (S.Rept. 107-
39). Conference Report passed by both Houses November 1, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-258).
Signed into law November 12, 2001.
H.R. 4 (Tauzin)
Securing America’s Future Energy Act of 2001. Omnibus energy bill includes
provisions establishing nuclear waste research program. Introduced July 27, 2001; referred
to multiple committees. Passed by House August 2, 2001, by vote of 240-189.
H.R. 2072 (Berkley)
Redirects the Nuclear Waste Fund into research, development, and utilization of
technologies for on-site nuclear waste storage and reduction of radiation levels. Introduced
June 6, 2001; referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Science, and Ways and Means.
CRS-14

IB92059
06-05-02
H.R. 2460 (Boehlert)
Comprehensive Energy Research and Technology Act of 2001. Includes provisions to
establish a nuclear waste research program. Introduced July 11, 2001; referred to Committee
on Science. Ordered reported July 18, 2001. Most provisions included in omnibus energy
legislation, H.R. 4.
H.R. 2587 (Tauzin)
Energy Advancement and Conservation Act of 2001. Includes provision to take the
Nuclear Waste Fund off-budget. Committee print adopted July 19, 2001; measure
introduced July 23, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce and other
committees, which were discharged. Reported by Energy and Commerce July 25, 2001.
Most provisions included in omnibus energy legislation, H.R. 4, but Nuclear Waste Fund
section dropped.
H.R. 3289 (Berkley)
Nuclear Waste Terrorist Threat Assessment and Protection Act. Prohibits Secretary of
Energy from recommending construction of the Yucca Mountain repository until interagency
plans to protect against terrorism are implemented. Introduced November 14, 2001; referred
to Committees on Energy and Commerce and Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.J.Res. 87 (Barton)/S.J.Res. 34 (Bingaman)
Joint Resolution to approve further development of a permanent nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. House version introduced April 11, 2002; referred
to Committee on Energy and Commerce. Approved by Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality April 23 by vote of 24-2. Approved by Energy and Commerce Committee April 25
by vote of 41-6 (H. Rept. 107-425). Passed House May 8, 2002, by vote of 306-117. Senate
version introduced April 9, 2002; approved by Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
June 5, 2002, by vote of 13-10.
S. 388 (Murkowski)
National Energy Security Act of 2001. Includes provisions on nuclear waste strategy
and research. Introduced February 26, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
S. 472 (Domenici)
Nuclear Energy Electricity Supply Assurance Act of 2001. Includes provisions on
nuclear waste strategy and research. Introduced March 7, 2001; referred to Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 517 (Bingaman)
Floor vehicle for omnibus energy legislation. Amended to include provisions on
nuclear waste strategy and research. Introduced March 12, 2001; referred to Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. Reported by Committee June 5, 2001.
CRS-15

IB92059
06-05-02
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Status of the Department of Energy Program to Develop a Permanent Geologic
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada
. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. June 23,
2000. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2000. 165 p.
“Serial no. 106-151"
---- Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999. Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. February 10
and March 12, 1999. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1999. 245 p.
“Serial no. 106-17"
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Nuclear Waste
Litigation. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. September 28, 2000. Washington,
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2001. 58 p.
S. Hrg. 106-918
---- Nuclear Waste Storage and Disposal Policy. Hearing, 106th Congress, 1st session.
March 24, 1999. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1999. 99 p.
S. Hrg. 106-105
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. Disposal of Low-
Level Radioactive Waste. Hearing, 106th Congress, 2nd session. July 25, 2000.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 2001. 166 p.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
League of Women Voters Education Fund. The Nuclear Waste Primer. Washington, D.C.,
1993. 170 p.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Report to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Secretary
of Energy. April 2001. 118 p.
U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management home page;
covers DOE activities for disposal, transportation, and other management of civilian
nuclear waste. [http://www.rw.doe.gov]
U.S. General Accounting Office. Nuclear Waste: Impediments to Completing the Yucca
Mountain Repository Project. GAO/RCED-97-30. January 1997. 56 p.
—— Low-Level Radioactive Wastes: States Are Not Developing Disposal Facilities.
GAO/RCED-99-238. September 1999. 104 p.
U.S. Geological Survey. Yucca Mountain as a Radioactive-Waste Repository. Circular
1184. 1999. 19 p.
CRS-16