Order Code RL33461
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
Updated November 26, 2007
Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
Summary
Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for
Congress since the beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Federal
policy is based on the premise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, but
proposed storage and disposal facilities have frequently been challenged on safety,
health, and environmental grounds. Although civilian radioactive waste
encompasses a wide range of materials, most of the current debate focuses on highly
radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent
nuclear fuel in a deep geologic repository. NWPA established an office in the
Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository and required the
program’s civilian costs to be covered by a fee on nuclear-generated electricity, paid
into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE’s
repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. DOE is studying numerous
scientific issues at Yucca Mountain in preparing a license application to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the planned repository. Questions about the site
include the likelihood of earthquakes, volcanoes, water infiltration, and human
intrusion.
NWPA’s goal for starting to load waste into the repository was 1998, but DOE
now does not expect to open the Yucca Mountain facility until 2017 at the earliest.
DOE plans to submit a license application to NRC by June 30, 2008.
Because a regular FY2007 appropriations bill was not enacted by the 109th
Congress, FY2007 funding for the nuclear waste program was provided by a
continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) at $444.5 million. The Administration requested
$494.5 million for the program for FY2008. The House approved the full request,
while the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to hold the program at $446.1
million, about the FY2007 level. FY2008 funding for the program is currently being
provided by a continuing resolution (P.L. 110-116) at the FY2007 level.
The Administration proposed legislation on March 6, 2007, to repeal the
statutory cap on the amount of waste at Yucca Mountain, reduce the scope of
environmental reviews for the repository, change budget procedures so that program
funding could be increased more easily, exempt nuclear waste sent to Yucca
Mountain from disposal requirements under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and allow preemption of state and local transportation requirements.
Enactment of the legislation is necessary to meet the new goal of opening the
repository by 2017, according to DOE. A similar bill (H.R. 5360, S. 2589) did not
pass in the 109th Congress.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Other Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nuclear Utility Lawsuits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nuclear Spent Fuel Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Characteristics of Nuclear Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Spent Nuclear Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Commercial Low-Level Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Current Policy and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Spent Nuclear Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Current Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Waste Facility Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Private Interim Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Alternative Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Low-Level Radioactive Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Current Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Regulatory Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Concluding Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
List of Tables
Table 1. DOE Civilian Spent Fuel Management Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
Most Recent Developments
The Department of Energy (DOE) certified on October 19, 2007, that more than
3.5 million documents supporting its planned license application for a high-level
nuclear waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain had been made electronically
available to the public as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Under NRC regulations, DOE must make the certification at least six months before
submitting the repository application to NRC; DOE plans to submit the Yucca
Mountain application by June 30, 2008. The State of Nevada, which opposes the
Yucca Mountain repository, asked NRC to reject the DOE certification on the
grounds that many key technical documents had been excluded. DOE’s current goal
for starting nuclear waste shipments to Yucca Mountain is early 2017 — 19 years
later than required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA).
The Bush Administration on March 6, 2007, proposed draft nuclear waste
legislation similar to legislation in the 109th Congress that was not enacted (H.R.
5360, S. 2589). DOE contends that its 2017 goal for opening the Yucca Mountain
repository cannot be met without the proposed statutory changes in the waste
program. The bill would repeal the 70,000 metric ton limit on the amount of waste
that can be emplaced at the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) planned nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain — a limit that is expected to be exceeded by currently
operating reactors during their lifetimes. The bill also would reduce the scope of
environmental reviews for the repository, change the budget scoring of waste fee
receipts so that program funding could be increased more easily, exempt nuclear
waste sent to Yucca Mountain from disposal requirements under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and allow preemption of state and local
transportation requirements. To remove a potential obstacle to new nuclear power
plants posed by Yucca Mountain delays, the bill would require the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to assume that sufficient disposal capacity will be
available for waste produced by new reactors. Several of those provisions are
included in a bill introduced by Senator Domenici May 23, 2007 (S. 37).
President Bush’s FY2008 budget request, submitted to Congress on February
5, 2007, would provide $494.5 million for the DOE civilian nuclear waste program
(including Yucca Mountain). FY2007 funding for the program was provided by a
continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5) at $444.5 million. The House on July 17, 2007,
approved the full request (H.R. 2641, H.Rept. 110-185), while the Senate
Appropriations Committee voted on June 28, 2007, to hold the program at $446.1
million.
The Administration also requested $395 million for FY2008 for spent nuclear
fuel recycling research (under the DOE nuclear energy research and development

---

CRS-2
program) as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The House
approved $120 million for the program, while the Senate panel recommended $242
million.
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.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and 1987 amendments,
the Department of Energy (DOE) is focusing on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to house
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.
Despite those concerns, DOE contends that the scientific evidence indicates that
Yucca Mountain is suitable and that licensing of the site by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) should proceed. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
completed by DOE in July 1999 and finalized in February 2002 recommended that
the project proceed as planned. However, DOE now does not expect the planned
Yucca Mountain repository to open until 2017 at the earliest, about 19 years later
than the 1998 goal specified by NWPA. DOE announced on July 19, 2006, that it
would submit an NRC license application — previously planned for 2005 — by June
30, 2008.
The safety of geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
(HLW), 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 strong worldwide consensus that the best,
safest long-term option for dealing with HLW is geologic isolation,” according to the
National Research Council.1
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 water intrusion or earthquake vulnerability, that could release radioactivity into the
environment. Much of the problem results from the inherent uncertainty involved
1 National Research Council, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Rethinking
High-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal: A Position Statement of the Board on Radioactive
Waste Management (1990), p. 2.

---

CRS-3
in predicting waste site performance for the one million years that nuclear waste is
to be isolated.
The Bush Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is
intended to address some of those disposal problems by reducing the volume of waste
that would be emplaced in a repository and reducing its long-term radioactivity.
Under GNEP, spent nuclear fuel would be reprocessed, or recycled, by separating
various elements, such as plutonium, that could be made into new fuel and
“transmuted” into shorter-lived radioactive isotopes. Spent fuel reprocessing,
however, has long been controversial because of the potential weapons use of
separated plutonium and cost concerns.
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. However, the Washington facility
does not accept waste from outside its region, and the South Carolina site will be
available only to the three members of the Atlantic disposal compact (Connecticut,
New Jersey, and South Carolina) after June 30, 2008. The lowest-concentration class
of low-level radioactive waste is also accepted by a Utah commercial disposal
facility. 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 approved disposal compacts. Pursuant
to a 2003 Texas statute, an application to build a disposal facility for commercial and
federal low-level waste in Andrews County, Texas, was filed August 2, 2004, by
Waste Control Specialists LLC.
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. 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. (now part of Exelon), on July 19, 2000. The agreement
allowed PECO to keep up to $80 million in nuclear waste fee revenues during the
subsequent 10 years. However, other utilities sued DOE to block the settlement,
contending that nuclear waste fees may be used only for the DOE waste program and
not as compensation for missing the disposal deadline. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit agreed, ruling September 24, 2002, that any compensation would
have to come from general revenues or other sources than the waste fund.

---

CRS-4
Exelon announced a settlement with the Department of Justice August 10, 2004,
in which compensation for the company’s nuclear waste storage costs would be paid
from the federal Judgment Fund. Exelon, which operates 17 reactors, calculates that
it would be reimbursed $300 million if DOE began taking waste by its previous goal
of 2010, and up to $600 million if the schedule slipped to 2015. As noted, DOE now
does not expect to begin taking waste until 2017 at the earliest.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has since ordered more than $400 million in
payments to utilities in several other nuclear waste delay cases. TVA was awarded
$34.9 million on January 31, 2006, which was paid from the Judgment Fund in
August 2006. Three New England power companies were awarded $142 million on
September 30, 2006, and Pacific Gas & Electric Company was awarded $42.7
million on October 13, 2006.2 Damages of $39 million were awarded on December
4, 2006, to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.3 Xcel Energy was awarded
$116 million in September 2007,4 and Entergy was awarded $58.7 million in October
2007.5
Duke Energy announced a settlement with DOE on March 6, 2007, in which the
company received an initial payment of $56 million and annual reimbursement for
future storage costs.6 More than 60 utilities have sued DOE over the waste disposal
delays. By October 2007, $290 million of the awards and settlements had been paid
from the Judgment Fund, according to the Congressional Budget Office.7 DOE
estimates that the federal government will be liable for $7 billion in utility payments
if Yucca Mountain begins operating by 2017 as currently planned, with the liability
growing to as much as $11 billion if the repository is delayed to 2020.8
Although some of the program’s delays have been blamed on poor management,
DOE contends that tight funding has been a major barrier. DOE cannot spend the
nuclear industry’s mandatory waste fees without congressional appropriations, 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
2 Hiruo, Elaine, “Court Awards PG&E Less Than Sought for Spent Fuel Storage Costs,”
Nucleonics Week, October 19, 2006, p. 9.
3 “Court Awards $39 Million to SMUD,” NuclearFuel, December 18, 2006, p. 13.
4 Meyers, Mike, “Xcel Wins Suit Over Spent-Fuel Storage,” McClatchy-Tribune Regional
News, distributed by Energy Central Professional, September 29, 2007.
5 Hiruo, Elaine, “Court Awards Entergy $58.7 Million for Damages in Spent Fuel Cases,”
NuclearFuel, October 22, 2007, p. 3.
6 Hiruo, Elaine, “Duke Receives $56 Million in Spent Fuel Settlement Agreement,”
NuclearFuel, March 12, 2007, p. 11.
7 Cawley, Kim, “The Federal Government’s Liabilities Under the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act,” Congressional Budget Office, Statement to House Budget Committee, October 4,
2007, p. 8.
8 Statement of Edward F. Sproat III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Energy, to the House Budget Committee, October 4, 2007,
p. 3.

---

CRS-5
disposal costs after today’s nuclear plants have ceased operation. The nuclear
industry and others have long urged changes in the waste program’s funding
mechanism but have consistently been blocked by budget scoring and policy issues.
Nuclear Spent Fuel Legislation
Continued delays in the Yucca Mountain project have prompted proposals for
a legislative redirection of the nuclear waste program. The Bush Administration
proposed draft legislation on March 6, 2007, that would “facilitate the licensing,
construction, and operation of the repository by 2017,” according to Energy Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman.9
The Administration’s nuclear waste bill is nearly identical to legislation it
submitted to the 109th Congress (H.R. 5360, S. 2589) that was not enacted. The bill
would reduce the scope of environmental reviews for the repository, change the
budget scoring of waste fee receipts so that program funding could be increased more
easily, exempt nuclear waste sent to Yucca Mountain from disposal requirements
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), allow preemption of
state and local transportation requirements, and permanently withdraw the site from
public lands use.
To remove a potential obstacle to new nuclear power plants posed by Yucca
Mountain delays, the Administration bill would require NRC to assume that
sufficient disposal capacity would be available for waste produced by new reactors
(known as the “waste confidence” determination). It also would repeal the 70,000
metric ton limit on the amount of waste that could be emplaced at Yucca Mountain,
a limit that is expected to be exceeded by currently operating reactors during their
lifetimes. Notably excluded from the bill is an authorization for interim federal
storage of nuclear waste pending disposal at Yucca Mountain.
Several provisions similar to those in the Administration’s bill are included in
legislation introduced by Senator Domenici on May 23, 2007 (S. 37). Called the
Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca (NUWAY) Act, S. 37 provides for permanent land
withdrawal, repeal of the repository capacity limit, infrastructure and rail line
construction, budget scoring changes, and the NRC waste confidence finding. It
excludes the Administration’s proposed RCRA exemption but includes an
authorization for interim storage of certain waste at Yucca Mountain.
At a hearing on S. 2589 by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
on August 3, 2006, DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Director
Ward F. Sproat III called enactment of the legislation a prerequisite for opening the
Yucca Mountain repository by 2017. “This proposed legislation addresses many of
the uncertainties that are currently beyond the control of the Department that have the
potential to significantly delay the opening date for the repository,” according to
Sproat’s opening statement. J. Barnie Beasley Jr., president of Southern Nuclear
9 Secretary of Energy, transmittal letter for “Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act,”
March 6, 2007.

---

CRS-6
Operating Company, expressed “the nuclear energy industry’s strong support” for the
legislation. After the latest version of the bill was submitted to the 110th Congress,
Sproat warned that if Congress does not lift the Yucca Mountain capacity limit, he
will have to recommend that a site search begin for a second repository.10
However, the State of Nevada strongly opposes the legislation. “Now you have
before you a bill that attempts, like a cowcatcher on a locomotive, to anticipate and
sweep aside every potential health and safety obstacle that could upset the relentless
drive to begin receiving highly radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel at Yucca
Mountain in 2017,” said Robert R. Loux, Executive Director of the Nevada Agency
for Nuclear Projects, in his opening statement at the August 2006 hearing.
Senator Reid introduced legislation on March 6, 2007, to require commercial
nuclear reactor operators to place their spent nuclear fuel into on-site dry storage
casks, which would then become the permanent responsibility of DOE (S. 784).
Opponents of the proposal contend that it would leave spent fuel at reactor sites
indefinitely and undermine the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. However, supporters
argue that the waste would be safer in dry storage at reactor sites than if it were
shipped across the country to Yucca Mountain.
Because of delays in the Yucca Mountain project, the Senate Appropriations
Committee included statutory authorization for the Secretary of Energy to designate
interim storage sites for spent nuclear fuel as part of the FY2007 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill (H.R. 5427, Sec. 313). However, the 109th
Congress adjourned without enacting the measure. The Senate Committee’s
provisions would have required the Secretary, after consultation with the governor,
to designate a storage site in each state with a nuclear power plant, if feasible, or to
designate regional storage facilities.
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 would have blocked
further repository development at Yucca Mountain if a resolution approving the site
had not been passed by Congress and signed into law within 90 days of continuous
session. An approval resolution was signed by President Bush July 23, 2002 (P.L.
107-200).11
10 Hiruo, Elaine, “Hoping to Push Repository Forward, DOE Resends Draft Bill to
Congress,” NuclearFuel, March 12, 2007, p. 12.
11 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 (H.Rept. 107-425). 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 (S.Rept. 107-159).
Following a 60-39 vote to consider S.J.Res. 34, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 87 by voice vote
July 9, 2002.

---

CRS-7
Characteristics of Nuclear Waste
Radioactive waste is a term that encompasses a broad range of material with
widely varying characteristics. Some waste has relatively slight radioactivity and is
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 the nuclei of uranium and other fissile elements) as well as long-lived
radionuclides (radioactive atoms) such as plutonium, which remains dangerously
radioactive for tens of thousands of years or more.
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 (TRU) 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. TRU waste is
being sent to a deep underground repository, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),
near Carlsbad, New Mexico.
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
that 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

---

CRS-8
radioactive portion is regulated by DOE or NRC under the Atomic Energy Act, while
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the non-radioactive elements
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Spent Nuclear Fuel
When spent nuclear fuel is removed from a reactor, usually after several years
of power production, it is thermally 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 enriched in the isotope U-235 (usually 3%-5%). But after nuclear fission
has taken place in the reactor, many of the uranium nuclei 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 deep pools of water adjacent to the
reactors to keep them from overheating and to protect workers from radiation.
Spent fuel discharged from U.S. commercial nuclear reactors is currently stored
at 72 power plant sites around the nation, plus two small central storage facilities.
At the end of 2002 (the most recent DOE survey), commercial spent fuel totaled
46,927 metric tons. A typical large commercial nuclear reactor discharges an average
of 20-30 metric tons of spent fuel per year — an average of about 2,150 metric tons
annually for the entire U.S. nuclear power industry. As a result, the total amount of
commercial spent fuel was estimated to exceed 53,000 metric tons by the end of
2006, and projected to reach 62,000 metric tons by 2010, when the Yucca Mountain
repository had been planned to open. Including 7,000 metric tons of DOE spent fuel
and high-level waste that is also planned for disposal at Yucca Mountain, the total
amount would nearly reach NWPA’s 70,000-metric-ton limit by 2010. (For details
on current spent fuel storage, see CRS Report RS22001, Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage
Locations and Inventory, by Anthony Andrews.)
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.
DOE recently updated its estimate of the total amount of commercial spent fuel that
may eventually require disposal from 105,000 metric tons12 to 130,000 metric tons.13
New storage capacity at operating nuclear plant sites or other locations will be
required if DOE is unable to begin accepting waste into its disposal system until 2017
12 DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, OCRWM Annual Report to
Congress, Fiscal Year 2002, DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C.
13 DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,
Summary, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D, October 2007, p. S-47.

---

CRS-9
or later. Most utilities are expected to construct new dry storage capacity for their
older, cooler 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.14
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened concerns about the
vulnerability of stored spent fuel. Concerns have been raised that an aircraft crash
into a reactor’s pool area or sabotage 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.
In a report released April 6, 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
found that “successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are
possible.” To reduce the likelihood of spent fuel cladding fires, the NAS study
recommended that hotter and cooler spent fuel assemblies be interspersed throughout
spent fuel pools, that spray systems be installed above the pools, and that more fuel
be transferred from pools to dry cask storage.15 NRC has agreed to consider some of
the recommendations, although it contends that current security measures would
prevent successful attacks. The nuclear industry contends 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. The FY2006 Energy and Water
appropriations bill (P.L. 109-103) gave NRC an additional $21 million to implement
the NAS recommendations.
Commercial Low-Level Waste
Slightly more than 4 million cubic feet of low-level waste with about 329,000
curies of radioactivity was shipped to commercial disposal sites in 2006, according
to DOE.16 Volumes can vary widely from year to year, based on the status of nuclear
decommissioning projects and cleanup activities that can generate especially large
quantities.
For more background on radioactive waste characteristics, see CRS Report
RL32163, Radioactive Waste Streams: An Overview of Waste Classification for
Disposal, by Anthony Andrews.
14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Waste Confidence Decision Review, 55 Federal Register
38474, September 18, 1990.
15 National Academy of Sciences, Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel
Storage: Public Report, released April 6, 2005, p. 2.
16 U.S. Department of Energy, Management Information Manifest System,
[http://mims.apps.em.doe.gov/mims.asp#].

---

CRS-10
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, holding
receipts from 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 cannot be
licensed, 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 permanent
repository be constructed. The repository recommendation occurred in February
2002, but DOE has not announced any plans for an MRS.
Waste Facility Schedules. DOE announced on July 19, 2006, that it would
submit a license application to NRC for the planned Yucca Mountain repository by
June 30, 2008. At the same time, DOE announced that its new goal for starting
nuclear waste shipments to Yucca Mountain would be early 2017 — 19 years later
than required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
In preparation for filing the Yucca Mountain license application, DOE certified
on October 19, 2007, that more than 3.5 million documents supporting the planned
application had been made electronically available to the public as required by NRC.
Under NRC regulations, DOE must make the document certification at least six
months before submitting the repository application. The State of Nevada, which

---

CRS-11
opposes the Yucca Mountain repository, asked NRC to reject the DOE certification
on the grounds that many key technical documents had been excluded.17
DOE announced on October 25, 2005, that it would require most spent fuel to
be sealed in standardized canisters before shipment to Yucca Mountain. This change
would largely eliminate the handling of individual fuel assemblies at the site, but it
also helped delay the Yucca Mountain license application.
The major activity at the Yucca Mountain site so far has been the construction
and operation 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. 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 President
Bush that the Yucca Mountain project go forward. At the same time, the Secretary
submitted the final EIS (see [http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/documents/feis_a/
index.htm]) and other supporting materials (for details, see the Yucca Mountain
Project home page at [http://www.ocrwm.doe.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. An approval
resolution passed by the House and Senate to overturn the state veto was signed by
the President July 23, 2002 (P.L. 107-200).
DOE announced April 8, 2004, that it planned to transport nuclear waste mostly
by rail to the planned Yucca Mountain repository. The Record of Decision on the
waste transportation mode was published in the Federal Register along with the
selection of a corridor in Nevada for a 300-mile rail spur to the Yucca Mountain site.
DOE estimated that Yucca Mountain would receive 9,000-10,000 rail shipments and
3,000-3,300 truck shipments over a 24-year period after the repository opened. On
October 13, 2006, DOE announced in the Federal Register that a second, shorter rail
route to Yucca Mountain would also be considered. However, permission to use
tribal land for the shorter route was withdrawn on April 17, 2007, so DOE is again
focusing on the 300-mile option. The repository is to be permanently closed after
about 100 years of operation, according to DOE’s draft supplemental EIS.18
17 State of Nevada, Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects, “Nevada Calls on
NRC to Throw Out ‘Defective’ DOE Database Needed for Yucca Mountain Project,” news
release, October 19, 2007.
18 U.S. DOE, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p. S10.

---

CRS-12
The quality of scientific work at Yucca Mountain was called into question by
DOE’s March 16, 2005, disclosure of e-mails from geologists indicating that some
quality assurance documentation had been falsified. DOE issued a technical report
in February 2006 that found that previous scientific conclusions about Yucca
Mountain had not been affected by the quality assurance problems. However, DOE
announced at the same time that some of the previous work would be redone or
supplemented.19 The Government Accountability Office in March 2006 found
chronic quality assurance problems in the Yucca Mountain project.20 Members of the
Nevada congressional delegation and state officials have called for the Yucca
Mountain project to be suspended and for an independent commission to review all
of DOE’s scientific work at Yucca Mountain.21
The state of Nevada is also fighting DOE in court. A suit filed in June 2002
charged DOE with violating NWPA by relying too strongly on casks and other
engineered barriers to prevent radioactive releases, rather than on Yucca Mountain’s
natural site characteristics. Another suit, filed January 9, 2003, contended that
Congress violated the Constitution in eliminating all candidate waste sites except
Yucca Mountain. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
rejected those challenges July 9, 2004, but it struck down EPA’s 10,000-year
regulatory compliance period as too short (discussed in more detail below).
Delays in the Yucca Mountain project have prompted congressional interest in
alternative nuclear waste management technologies. The FY2006 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act22 provided $495 million for nuclear waste disposal
— $148.5 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund and $346.5 million from the
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal Account. Of the defense waste funding, $50
million was provided for DOE to develop a spent nuclear fuel recycling plan, in
conjunction with a recycling technology development plan required under the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). DOE submitted the required program plan
in May 2006.23
The FY2006 appropriations measure also required DOE to select a nuclear
recycling site in FY2007 and begin construction in FY2010. Applicants for a
recycling facility can receive up to $5 million per site, up to a total of $20 million,
to prepare detailed proposals. DOE selected 11 sites to receive the grants on
November 29, 2006.
19 DOE Office of Public Affairs, Technical Report Confirms Reliability of Yucca Mountain
Technical Work, February 17, 2006.
20 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Yucca Mountain: Quality Assurance at DOE’s
Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Needs Increased Management Attention, GAO-06-313,
March 2006, p. 6.
21 Elaine Hiruo, “DOE Sought Help From Scientist Who Wrote E-mails,” NuclearFuel,
April 11, 2005, p. 1.
22 H.Rept. 109-275, P.L. 109-103.
23 DOE, Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Plan, May 2006.

---

CRS-13
The House on May 24, 2006, approved $574.5 million for the nuclear waste
program in its version of the FY2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Bill (H.R. 5427, H.Rept. 109-474), with the additional $30 million to be used for
interim waste storage if authorizing legislation is enacted. The Senate
Appropriations Committee voted on June 29, 2006, to cut the waste program request
to $494.5 million, about the same as the FY2006 funding level, and added statutory
provisions authorizing the Secretary of Energy to designate interim storage sites for
spent nuclear fuel (described above). However, as noted, the FY2007 funding
measure died in the 109th Congress, and DOE programs were under a continuing
resolution for all of FY2007.
DOE’s FY2008 budget request would sharply boost research funding for
recycling (also called reprocessing) in the AFCI program — from $167.5 million to
$395.0 million — as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The
House approved $120.0 million for the program, while the Senate Appropriations
Committee recommended $242.0 million.
Private Interim Storage. In response to delays in the federal nuclear waste
program, 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
on June 25, 1997, and an NRC licensing board recommended approval on February
24, 2005. On September 9, 2005, NRC denied the State of Utah’s final appeals and
authorized the NRC staff to issue the license. The 20-year license for storing up to
44,000 tons of spent fuel in dry casks was issued on February 21, 2006, although
NRC noted that Interior Department approval would also be required.
On September 7, 2006, the Department of the Interior issued two decisions
against the PFS project. The Bureau of Indian Affairs disapproved a proposed lease
of tribal trust lands to PFS, concluding there was too much risk that the waste could
remain at the site indefinitely.24 The Bureau of Land Management rejected the
necessary rights-of-way to transport waste to the facility, concluding that a proposed
rail line would be incompatible with the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area and that
existing roads would be inadequate.25
In reaction to the Interior Department decisions, Senator Hatch, a staunch
opponent of the PFS proposal, declared the project “stone cold dead.”26 However,
24 Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record of Decision for the Construction and Operation of an
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) on the Reservation of the Skull Valley
Band of Goshute Indians (Band) in Tooele County, Utah, September 7, 2006.
25 Bureau of Land Management, Record of Decision Addressing Right-of-Way Applications
U 76985 and U 76986 to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel to the Reservation of the Skull
Valley Band of Goshute Indians, September 7, 2006.
26 Senator Orrin Hatch, Utahns Deliver Killing Blow to Skull Valley Nuke Waste Plan, News
Release, September 7, 2006.

---

CRS-14
a PFS spokesperson said legal challenges to the Interior Department decisions or
other steps remained under consideration.27
The NRC licensing board had determined on March 10, 2003, that the PFS
facility should not be licensed without sufficient evidence that it could withstand a
crash from fighter jets based nearby. In February 2005, the three-member panel
decided 2-1 that most crashes would not breach the storage casks and that the
probability of radioactive releases was therefore low enough to allow the facility to
be licensed. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on August 4,
2004, struck down several statutes that Utah had enacted to block the PFS project,
but the state is appealing the decision. The state also filed a lawsuit in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 6, 2006, to overturn the PFS
license.28
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 (DOT). Under NWPA, DOE shipments to Yucca
Mountain must use NRC-certified casks and comply with NRC requirements for
notifying state and local governments. Yucca Mountain shipments must also follow
DOT regulations on routing, placarding, and safety.
NRC’s licensing requirements for Yucca Mountain, at 10 C.F.R. 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.
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 limit the radiation dose that the repository could
impose on individual members of the public, were required to be consistent with the
findings of a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which was issued
27 Telephone conversation with Sue Martin, PFS public affairs consultant, September 19,
2006.
28 LLW Notes, “Utah Challenges License Issuance to PFS,” March/April 2006, p. 16.

---

CRS-15
August 1, 1995.29 The NAS study recommended 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
after about 400,000 years.
EPA issued its final Yucca Mountain standards on June 6, 2001. The final
standards included most of the major provisions of the proposed version, including
the 15 millirem overall exposure limit and the 4 millirem groundwater limit. Despite
the Department’s opposition to the EPA standards, DOE’s site suitability evaluation
determined 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.
In a ruling that could delay the nuclear waste program, a three-judge U.S. Court
of Appeals panel on July 9, 2004, struck down the 10,000-year regulatory compliance
period in the EPA and NRC Yucca Mountain standards.30 The court ruled that the
10,000-year period was inconsistent with the NAS study on which the Energy Policy
Act required the Yucca Mountain regulations to be based. In fact, the court found,
the NAS study had specifically rejected a 10,000-year compliance period because of
analysis that showed peak radioactive exposures from the repository would take place
several hundred thousand years in the future.
In response to the court decision, EPA proposed a new version of the Yucca
Mountain standards on August 9, 2005. The proposal would retain the dose limits
of the previous standard for the first 10,000 years but allow a higher annual dose of
350 millirems for the period of 10,000 years through 1 million years. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Yucca Mountain repository estimates that
mean peak doses — occurring after 400,000 years — would be about 150 millirems
(Volume 1, Chapter 5). EPA also is proposing to base the new Yucca Mountain
standard on the median dose, rather than the mean, potentially making it easier to
29 National Research Council. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. National
Academy Press. 1995.
30 Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 01-1258, July 9, 2004.

---

CRS-16
meet.31 Nevada state officials called EPA’s proposed standard far too lenient and
charged that it was “unlawful and arbitrary.”32
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 reprocessing or “recycling” of spent fuel so
that plutonium, uranium, and other long-lived radionuclides could be converted to
faster-decaying fission products in special nuclear reactors or particle accelerators.
The spent fuel recycling provisions in recent Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bills and the Administration’s GNEP initiative, discussed above,
seem to indicate growing interest in this area.
Funding. DOE requested $494.5 million in FY2008 for the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management. The request is nearly the same as the FY2006 level
and $50 million above FY2007 funding. According to DOE, the FY2008 funding
request would allow OCRWM to submit the Yucca Mountain license application to
NRC by June 30, 2008; conduct security and safety planning; develop a preliminary
transportation plan; and improve site infrastructure and operations.33
Funding for the program is provided under two appropriations accounts, as
shown in Table 1. The Administration requested $202.5 million from the Nuclear
Waste Fund, which holds the fees paid by nuclear utilities. An additional $292.0
million was requested under the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal account, which
pays for disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear weapons program in the
planned Yucca Mountain repository. The House Appropriations Committee on June
6, 2007, recommended approval of the full request (H.R. 2641, H.Rept. 110-185),
and the House went along on July 17, 2007. However, the Senate Appropriations
Committee voted on June 28 to hold the program at $446.1 million.
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 August 31, 2007, utility nuclear waste
fees and interest totaled $27.145 billion, of which $6.876 billion had been disbursed
31 Especially high doses at the upper end of the exposure range would raise the mean, or
average, more than the median, or the halfway point in the data set.
32 Office of the Governor, Agency for Nuclear Projects. Comments by the State of Nevada
on EPA’s Proposed New Radiation Protection Rule for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste
Repository. November 2005.
33 DOE, FY 2008 Congressional Budget, DOE/CF-017, Vol. 4, p. 490.

---

CRS-17
to the waste disposal program, according to DOE’s program summary report, leaving
a balance of $20.269 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund. The nuclear waste
program’s appropriations for FY1983-FY2006 total $9.212 billion, according to
DOE, including $2.969 billion for defense waste disposal.34
Table 1. DOE Civilian Spent Fuel Management Funding
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2008
FY2008
Program
Approp.
Request
House
Senate Com.
Yucca Mountain
— *
378.5
— *
— *
Transportation
—
15.0
—
—
Program integration
—
26.4
—
—
Program direction
—
74.7
—
—
Total
444.5
494.5
494.5
446.1
Source of Funding
Nuclear Waste Fund appropriations
99.0
202.5
202.5
202.5
Defense waste appropriations
345.5
292.0
292.0
242.0
Inyo County (CA) coop. agreement
—
—
—
1.6
Sources: Appropriations Committee reports, DOE FY2006 Congressional Budget Request.
* Subcategories not specified.
The DOE Total System Life Cycle Cost Report, issued in May 2001 and
updated in September 2003, estimates that the entire nuclear waste program will cost
$57.5 billion (in constant 2000 dollars) through 2119. However, a higher DOE
estimate of the amount of spent fuel that may be emplaced in Yucca Mountain — if
the statutory cap is removed — could increase that cost estimate by 35%, according
to program officials.35
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Current Policy. Selecting disposal sites for 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)
34 DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Program
Management, Monthly Summary of Program Financial and Budget Information, as of
August 31, 2007, available at [http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/budget/money.shtml].
35 Hiruo, Elaine, “Yucca’s Total Project Cost Up 35%, Sproat Says,” NuclearFuel, October
8, 2007, p. 1.

---

CRS-18
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 and another closed, leaving one open to nationwide
disposal of all major types of low-level waste and one open only regionally. A third
site, in Utah, has since become available nationwide for most Class A low-level
waste.
Despite the 1992 deadline, no new disposal sites have been opened. Legislation
providing congressional consent to a disposal compact among Texas, Maine, and
Vermont was signed by President Clinton September 20, 1998 (P.L. 105-236).
However, on October 22, 1998, a proposed disposal site near Sierra Blanca, Texas,
was rejected by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and Maine
has since withdrawn. Texas Governor Perry signed legislation June 20, 2003,
authorizing the Texas Commission on Environment Quality to license adjacent
disposal facilities for commercial and federally generated low-level waste. Pursuant
to that statute, an application to build a disposal facility for commercial and federal
low-level waste in Andrews County, Texas, was filed August 2, 2004, by Waste
Control Specialists LLC.
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. A U.S. district court judge ruled September 30, 2002, that Nebraska had
exercised bad faith in disapproving the site and ordered the state to pay $151 million
to the compact. A settlement was reached August 9, 2004, in which Nebraska will
pay the compact $140.4 million, and the compact will seek access to the planned
Texas disposal facility. 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.
The disposal facility at Barnwell, South Carolina, 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. 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 to 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.
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
June 30, 2008.

---

CRS-19
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. After the South Carolina facility closes to out-of-region
waste, the 36 states and the District of Columbia that are outside the Northwest,
Rocky Mountain, and Atlantic Compacts will have no disposal site for Class B and
C low-level waste. 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.
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 and Utah, are agreement states. 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.
Concluding Discussion
Disposal of radioactive waste will be a key issue in the continuing nuclear
power debate. Without a national disposal system, spent fuel from nuclear power
plants must be stored on-site indefinitely. This situation may raise public concern
near proposed reactor sites, particularly at sites without existing reactors where spent
nuclear fuel is already stored. Several states have tied approval of new reactors to the
availability of waste disposal capacity.36
Under current law, the federal government’s waste disposal policy is focused
on the planned Yucca Mountain repository. Despite presidential and congressional
approval for the Yucca Mountain licensing process to go forward, DOE will face
relentless opposition from the State of Nevada during NRC licensing proceedings.
EPA’s proposed new environmental standards for Yucca Mountain may face legal
challenges as well, which could further slow the process.
Because of their waste-disposal contracts with DOE, owners of existing reactors
are likely to continue seeking damages from the federal government if disposal
delays continue. DOE’s 2004 settlement with the nation’s largest nuclear operator,
Exelon, could require payments of up to $600 million from the federal judgment
fund, and DOE estimates that payments could rise to $11 billion if Yucca Mountain
36 Lovell, David L., Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, State Statutes Limiting the
Construction of Nuclear Power Plants, October 5, 2006.

---

CRS-20
does not open before 2010. The nuclear industry has predicted that future damages
could reach tens of billions of dollars if the federal disposal program fails altogether.
The Administration’s proposed nuclear waste legislation is intended to remove
some of the obstacles to opening Yucca Mountain and to remove the lack of
permanent waste disposal as an obstacle to licensing new nuclear power plants. The
House and Senate Appropriations Committees in the 109th Congress urged that the
federal government provide interim storage of spent nuclear fuel pending a
permanent solution, but that option has proven highly controversial in the past.
The Administration’s proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would open
the door for spent fuel reprocessing as a long-term option for handling nuclear waste.
Reprocessing (or recycling) proponents have long contended that direct disposal of
spent fuel — as currently planned — would waste a potentially vast energy resource
and that reprocessing could reduce the long-term hazard posed by nuclear waste.
However, the United States has not pursued commercial reprocessing since the
1970s, because of concerns over nuclear nonproliferation and costs. Heated reaction,
both pro and con, to the Administration’s latest initiative indicates that the
controversy has not receded in the meantime.
Legislation
H.R. 2282 (Schmidt)
Nuclear Waste Storage Prohibition Act. Prohibits DOE from using GNEP funds
to store nuclear waste at any site where reprocessing facilities are not operating or
under construction. Introduced May 10, 2007; referred to Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
H.R. 2641 (Visclosky)
Energy and Water Development Appropriations for FY2008. Includes funding
for DOE nuclear waste program and GNEP. Reported as an original measure by the
Committee on Appropriations June 11, 2007 (H.Rept 110-185) following committee
markup June 6, 2007. Passed House July 17, 2007, by a vote of 312-112. Approved
by Senate Appropriations Committee June 28, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-127).
S. 37 (Domenici)
Nuclear Waste Access to Yucca Act. Permanently withdraws Yucca Mountain
site from public use, authorizes nuclear waste interim storage facilities at Yucca
Mountain, repeals the Yucca Mountain capacity limit, and makes other changes in
the nuclear waste program. Introduced May 23, 2007; referred to Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 784 (Reid)/H.R. 4062 (Matheson)
Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007. Requires
commercial nuclear power plants to transfer spent fuel from pools to dry storage
casks and then convey title to the Secretary of Energy. Senate bill introduced March
6, 2007; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. House bill
introduced November 1, 2007; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.

---

CRS-21
Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality. A Review of the President’s Recommendation to
Develop a Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Hearing,
107th Congress, 2nd session. April 18, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002. 294 p.
Serial no. 107-99.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Low-Level
Radioactive Waste. Hearing, 108th Congress, 2nd session. September 30, 2004.
Washington: GPO, 2005. 62 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Yucca Mountain Repository Development. Hearings, 107th
Congress, 1st session. May 16, 22, and 23, 2002. Washington: GPO, 2002. 240
p. S.Hrg. 107-483.
For Additional Reading
Harvard University. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs. The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel. DE-FG26-99FT4028. December 2003.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Report to the U.S. Congress and the U.S.
Secretary of Energy. January 2007.
[http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/reports.html]
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.ocrwm.doe.gov].
U.S. General Accounting Office. Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal
Availability Adequate in the Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any
Future Shortfalls. GAO-04-604. June 2004. 53 p.

---