Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal
Mark Holt
Specialist in Energy Policy
September 4, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33461
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

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 submitted a license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) on June 3, 2008, and NRC docketed the application September 8,
2008. The NRC license is to be based on radiation exposure standards set by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which issued revised standards September 30, 2008. The State of
Nevada strongly opposes the Yucca Mountain project, disputing DOE’s analysis that the
repository would meet EPA’s standards. Risks cited by repository opponents include excessive
water infiltration, earthquakes, volcanoes, and human intrusion.
The Obama Administration has decided to “terminate the Yucca Mountain program while
developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives,” according to the DOE FY2010 budget
justification. Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are to be evaluated by a “blue ribbon” panel of
experts convened by the Administration. At the same time, according to the justification, the NRC
licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository is to continue, “consistent with the
provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.”
The FY2010 budget request of $198.6 million for DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management would provide only enough funding to continue the Yucca Mountain licensing
process and to evaluate alternative policies, according to DOE. The request is about $90 million
below the FY2009 funding level, which was nearly $100 million below the FY2008 level. All
work related solely to preparing for construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain repository
is being halted, according to the DOE budget justification.
The House-passed version of the FY2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill
(H.R. 3183) approves the Administration’s funding cuts but includes a requirement that Yucca
Mountain be one of the options considered by the “blue ribbon” nuclear waste panel. The Senate
version of the bill also approves the DOE nuclear waste funding cut but does not include the
House requirement on the blue-ribbon panel; in addition, the Senate bill would reduce funding for
NRC’s Yucca Mountain licensing activities. Senator Reid of Nevada, a long-time opponent of the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository, announced on July 29, 2009, that the Administration had
agreed to terminate the Yucca Mountain licensing effort in the FY2011 budget request.


Congressional Research Service

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Contents
Most Recent Developments......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Spent Nuclear Fuel Program.................................................................................................. 1
Other Programs..................................................................................................................... 3
Nuclear Utility Lawsuits ............................................................................................................. 3
Future Liability Estimates .....................................................................................................4
Congressional Action .................................................................................................................. 6
Characteristics of Nuclear Waste ................................................................................................. 7
Spent Nuclear Fuel................................................................................................................ 8
Commercial Low-Level Waste ............................................................................................ 10
Current Policy and Regulation................................................................................................... 10
Spent Nuclear Fuel.............................................................................................................. 10
Current Program ........................................................................................................... 10
Waste Facility Schedules............................................................................................... 11
Private Interim Storage.................................................................................................. 11
Regulatory Requirements .............................................................................................. 12
Alternative Technologies ............................................................................................... 14
Funding ........................................................................................................................ 14
Low-Level Radioactive Waste............................................................................................. 16
Current Policy............................................................................................................... 16
Regulatory Requirements .............................................................................................. 17
Concluding Discussion.............................................................................................................. 18
Legislation ................................................................................................................................ 19
Congressional Hearings, Reports, and Documents ..................................................................... 20
For Additional Reading ............................................................................................................. 21

Figures
Figure 1. DOE Estimate of Future Liabilities for Nuclear Waste Delays....................................... 5

Tables
Table 1. DOE Civilian Spent Fuel Management Funding........................................................... 16

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Most Recent Developments
The Obama Administration has decided to “terminate the Yucca Mountain program while
developing nuclear waste disposal alternatives,” according to the Department of Energy (DOE)
FY2010 budget justification, submitted to Congress May 7, 2009. Under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada is the only location under consideration by DOE
for construction of a national high-level radioactive waste repository. DOE had submitted a
license application for the proposed repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on
June 3, 2008.
President Obama’s FY2010 budget calls for a “blue ribbon” panel of experts to evaluate
alternatives to the Yucca Mountain repository. At the same time, according to the DOE budget
justification, the NRC licensing process for the Yucca Mountain repository is to continue,
“consistent with the provisions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.”
The FY2010 budget request of $198.6 million for DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, which runs the nuclear waste program, would provide only enough funding to
continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process and to evaluate alternative policies, according to
DOE. The request is about $90 million below the FY2009 funding level, which was nearly $100
million below the FY2008 level. All work related solely to preparing for construction and
operation of the Yucca Mountain repository is being halted, according to the DOE budget
justification.
The House version of the FY2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill (H.R.
3183, H.Rept. 111-203), passed July 17, 2009, approves the Administration’s funding cuts but
includes a requirement that Yucca Mountain be one of the options considered by the “blue
ribbon” nuclear waste panel. The Senate version of the bill, passed July 29, 2009 (S.Rept. 111-
45), also approves the DOE nuclear waste funding cut but does not include the House
requirement on the blue-ribbon panel; in addition, the Senate bill would reduce funding for
NRC’s Yucca Mountain licensing activities. Senator Reid of Nevada, a long-time opponent of the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository, announced on the same day as Senate passage that the
Administration had agreed to terminate the Yucca Mountain licensing effort in the FY2011 budget
request.
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. Low-level
radioactive waste generated by nuclear power plants, industry, hospitals, and other activities is
also a longstanding issue.
Spent Nuclear Fuel Program
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
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.
Under the Bush Administration, DOE determined that Yucca Mountain was suitable for a
repository and that licensing of the site by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should
proceed. DOE submitted a license application for the repository to NRC on June 3, 2008, and
projected that the repository could begin receiving waste in 2020, about 22 years later than the
1998 goal specified by NWPA.1
However, the Obama Administration decided that the Yucca Mountain repository should not be
opened, although it requested FY2010 funding to continue the NRC licensing process. The
Administration announced plans to convene a “blue ribbon” panel to develop alternative waste
disposal strategies. (For a discussion of policy options, see CRS Report R40202, Nuclear Waste
Disposal: Alternatives to Yucca Mountain, by Mark Holt.)
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.2
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 in predicting waste site performance for the one million years that nuclear
waste is to be isolated.
President Obama’s FY2010 budget calls for long-term research on technologies that could reduce
the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste. The Bush Administration had proposed to develop
large-scale facilities to reprocess and recycle spent nuclear fuel by separating long-lived 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. The Obama Administration
proposes to refocus DOE’s nuclear waste research on fundamental science and away from the
design and development of reprocessing facilities.

1 Nuclear Energy Institute, Key Issues, Yucca Mountain, http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/
yuccamountain/, viewed April 11, 2008.
2 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.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Other Programs
Other types of civilian radioactive waste have also generated public controversy, particularly low-
level 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 is available only to the three
members of the Atlantic disposal compact (Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina) as of
June 30, 2008. The lowest-concentration class of low-level radioactive waste is accepted from
any waste generator 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. No new sites have been opened by any of the 10
approved disposal compacts, although a site in Texas received conditional approval in January
2009 and may open in 2010.
Nuclear Utility Lawsuits
NWPA section 302 authorized DOE to enter into contracts with U.S. generators of spent nuclear
fuel and other highly radioactive waste; under the contracts, DOE was to dispose of the waste in
return for a fee on nuclear power generation. The act prohibited nuclear reactors from being
licensed to operate without a nuclear waste disposal contract with DOE, and all reactor operators
subsequently signed them.3 As required by NWPA, the contracts specified that DOE would begin
disposing of nuclear waste no later than January 31, 1998.
After DOE missed the contractual deadline, nuclear utilities began filing lawsuits to recover their
additional storage costs—costs they would not have incurred had DOE begun accepting waste in
1998 as scheduled. DOE reached its first settlement with a nuclear utility, PECO Energy
Company (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.
The Department of Justice has since negotiated settlements with four utilities: Exelon, Scana,
Duke, and the Omaha Public Power District, plus an additional tentative settlement. All five
settlements would involve 36 of the 118 reactors (operating and closed) that are covered by DOE
waste disposal contracts under NWPA. Under the settlements, utilities submit annual
reimbursement claims to DOE for any delay-related nuclear waste storage costs they incurred
during that year. Any disagreements over reimbursable claims between DOE and a utility would
go to arbitration. Through the end of calendar year 2008, $406 million had been paid under the

3 The Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste can be found at 10
CFR 961.11.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

settlements. The payments are made from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund, a permanent
account that is used to cover damage claims against the U.S. government.4
Other nuclear utilities have not reached settlements, but have continued pursuing their damage
claims through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Unlike the settlements, which cover all past and
future damages resulting from DOE’s nuclear waste delays, awards by the Court of Claims can
cover only damages that have already been incurred; therefore, utilities must continue filing
claims as they accrue additional delay-related costs. About 20 cases involving initial damage
claims have been tried in the Court of Claims so far, and about 30 more are pending. In addition,
about half a dozen second-round suits have been filed by utilities that had already filed initial
claims.
In the cases that have been tried so far, the Court of Claims has awarded judgments to the
plaintiffs totaling $790 million. Of that amount, only $34.9 million has been paid—for one case
filed by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The remaining cases are under appeal. Added to
the $406 million in settlement payments, the $34.9 million TVA award brings the federal
government’s total nuclear waste damage payments so far to $440.9 million.
Future Liability Estimates
DOE estimates that its potential liabilities for waste program delays will total $11 billion through
2056 (in current dollars) if the Department is able to begin taking spent nuclear fuel from plant
sites by 2020, which had been the Bush Administration’s most recent goal. DOE’s methodology
for this estimate is shown in Figure 1. The yellow line shows DOE’s estimate of how much spent
fuel would have been removed from nuclear plant sites had shipments begun on the NWPA
deadline of January 1998. The rate of waste acceptance under that scenario is 900 metric tons per
year from 1998 through 2015 and 2,100 tons/year thereafter. That assumed acceptance rate was
negotiated by DOE as part of the settlements discussed above. The annual costs reimbursed by
DOE under the settlements cover utilities’ expenses for storing waste that would have already
been taken away under the assumed acceptance rate (the yellow line).
The green and red lines in Figure 1 show DOE’s planned waste acceptance rate if waste
shipments begin by 2017 or 2020. Under those scenarios, DOE would take away 400 metric tons
the first year, 600 the second year, 1,200 the third year, 2,000 the fourth year, and 3,000 per year
thereafter. This is the rate assumed by DOE’s Total System Life Cycle Cost Report.5 At that
higher acceptance rate, DOE would be able to eventually catch up with the amount of waste that
it was assumed to take under the settlements (the yellow line). If waste acceptance began by 2017
(the green line), the backlog would be eliminated by 2046, and if acceptance began by 2020 (the
red line) the backlog would be gone by 2056. Under the settlements, therefore, there would be no
further annual damage payments after those years, if DOE were able to achieve the 2017 or 2020
acceptance scenario.

4 Information in this section about nuclear waste settlements, court judgments, and liability estimates is based on a
telephone conversation with David K. Zabransky, Nuclear Utility Specialist, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, U.S. Department of Energy, March 25, 2009.
5 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Analysis of the Total System Life
Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, Fiscal year 2007, DOE/RW-0591, Washington,
DC, July 2008, p. 20, http://ocrwm.doe.gov/about/budget/pdf/TSLCC_2007_8_05_08.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Figure 1. DOE Estimate of Future Liabilities for Nuclear Waste Delays

Source: Christopher A. Kouts, Principal Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
U.S. Department of Energy, “Yucca Mountain Program Status Update,” July 22, 2008, p. 18.

DOE bases its estimate of the total damage payments that would be paid through 2046 or 2056 on
the amounts paid to date under the settlement claims. If damage awards by the Court of Claims
(currently involving about two-thirds of U.S. reactors) exceed those assumed levels, then future
payments would be higher than the DOE estimate in Figure 1.
Further delays in the start of waste acceptance would delay the point at which DOE would catch
up to the cumulative waste shipments assumed under the settlement scenario (yellow line) and
would no longer have to make annual damage payments. DOE estimates that each year’s delay in
the startup date would increase the total eventual damage payments by as much as $500 million.
DOE filed a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the proposed
Yucca Mountain repository in June 2008, and has estimated that annual program spending would
have to increase to nearly $2 billion (from around $300 million in FY2009) to allow waste
shipments to begin by 2020 if the license were approved.6 However, President Obama’s FY2010
budget request would sharply reduce Yucca Mountain funding, as noted above.
The House and Senate have both accepted the Administration’s FY2010 nuclear waste budget
cuts, so it appears unlikely that spent nuclear fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain could begin by
2020, even if full funding for the project were to be restored in the future. Waste acceptance by
2020 might be possible if Congress authorizes one or more temporary storage sites within the
next few years, although previous efforts to develop such facilities have been blocked by state
and local opposition.

6 Ibid., p. B-2.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Delays in the federal waste disposal program could also lead to future environmental enforcement
action over DOE’s own high-level waste and spent fuel, mostly resulting from defense and
research activities. Some of the DOE-owned waste is currently being stored in non-compliance
with state and federal environmental laws, making DOE potentially subject to fines and penalties
if the waste is not removed according to previously negotiated compliance schedules.
Congressional Action
President Obama’s proposal to terminate the Yucca Mountain project and search for disposal
alternatives has prompted considerable congressional response. The Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee approved a comprehensive energy bill on June 17, 2009, that would
establish a federal advisory commission to study nuclear waste options and submit
recommendations to Congress (S. 1492, S.Rept. 111-48). President Obama’s FY2010 budget
request for $5 million for a blue-ribbon panel to study nuclear waste alternatives has been
approved by the House and Senate and is awaiting conference action, with the primary difference
being the House’s requirement that Yucca Mountain be one of the alternatives considered.
Senator Graham introduced a bill (S. 861) that would require the President to certify that the
Yucca Mountain site continues to be the designated location for a nuclear waste repository under
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If such a certification is not made within 30 days after enactment
or is subsequently revoked, the Treasury is to refund all payments, plus interest, made by nuclear
reactor owners to the Nuclear Waste Fund. DOE is to begin shipping defense-related high-level
radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain by 2017 or pay $1 million per day to each state in which
such waste is located.
Delays in nuclear waste disposal could affect the approximately 30 new U.S. reactors currently
being proposed, because new reactors cannot be licensed without an NRC determination that
sufficient waste disposal capacity will be available. Several bills have been introduced (see
Legislation section) to prohibit NRC from denying a reactor license because of a lack of disposal
capacity. Several recent bills would also encourage nuclear waste reprocessing and recycling, and
would place the Nuclear Waste Fund “off budget” so that appropriations from the Waste Fund
would no longer be subject to budget caps.
The Bush Administration proposed legislation in the 109th Congress (H.R. 5360, S. 2589) that
was designed to speed the development of the Yucca Mountain repository. The bill would have
reduced the scope of environmental reviews for the repository, changed the budget scoring of
waste fee receipts so that program funding could be increased more easily, exempted nuclear
waste sent to Yucca Mountain from disposal requirements under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), allowed preemption of state and local transportation requirements, and
permanently withdrawn the site from public lands use.
In addition, the Bush Administration bill would have required 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 have repealed 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.
The State of Nevada strongly opposed the Administration’s Yucca Mountain legislation. As an
alternative approach, Senator Reid introduced legislation on March 6, 2007, to require
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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).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 described below:8
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.

7 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.
8 Statutory definitions for “spent nuclear fuel,” “high-level radioactive waste,” and “low-level radioactive waste” can
be found in Section 2 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101). “Transuranic waste” is defined in
Section 11ee. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2014); Section 11e.(2) of the Act includes uranium mill tailings in
the definition of “byproduct material.” “Mixed waste” consists of chemically hazardous waste as defined by EPA
regulations (40 CFR Part 261, Subparts C and D) that contains radioactive materials as defined by the Atomic Energy
Act.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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 typically 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. Chemically hazardous waste that includes radioactive material. High-level, low-
level, and TRU waste, and radioactive byproduct material, often falls under the designation of
mixed waste. Such waste poses complicated institutional problems, because the 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. 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. The nuclear industry
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

estimated that the total amount of commercial spent fuel was 56,586 metric tons by January
2008,9 an amount projected to reach 62,000 metric tons by 2010. 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.
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 U.S. commercial spent fuel that may eventually require disposal
from 105,000 metric tons10 to 130,000 metric tons.11
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 2020 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.
Forty-seven licensed dry storage facilities are currently operating in the United States.12 NRC has
determined that spent fuel could be stored safely at reactor sites for up to 100 years.13
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.14 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.

9 “Spent Fuel Inventory at 56,586 Metric Tons,” NuclearFuel, January 28, 2008, p. 10.
10 DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, OCRWM Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2002,
DOE/RW-0560, October 2003, Appendix C.
11 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.
12 ACI Nuclear Energy Solutions, U.S. Commercial Reactor Dry Storage Summary, July 20, 2009.
13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Waste Confidence Decision Review, 55 Federal Register 38474, September 18,
1990.
14 National Academy of Sciences, Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report,
released April 6, 2005, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Commercial Low-Level Waste
Nearly 2.1 million cubic feet of low-level waste with about 800,000 curies of radioactivity was
shipped to commercial disposal sites in 2008, according to DOE.15 Volumes and radioactivity can
vary widely from year to year, based on the status of nuclear decommissioning projects and
cleanup activities that can generate especially large quantities.
Low-level radioactive waste is divided into three major categories for handling and disposal:
Class A, B, and C. Classes B and C have constituted less than 1% of the volume of U.S. low-level
waste disposal during the past five years but contain most of its radioactivity. For more
background on radioactive waste characteristics, see CRS Report RL32163, Radioactive Waste
Streams: Waste Classification for Disposal, by Anthony Andrews.
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.

15 U.S. Department of Energy, Management Information Manifest System, http://mims.apps.em.doe.gov/mims.asp#.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

President Obama has proposed that OCRWM and the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) be
headed by the same person, leading to speculation that the two offices will be functionally
combined. Much of NE’s FY2010 funding request is focused on nuclear waste research. The
President’s nominee, Warren F. “Pete” Miller Jr., has been confirmed by the Senate for the NE
post but not for OCRWM.
Waste Facility Schedules
In proposing to terminate the Yucca Mountain project, the Obama Administration has not
announced a new schedule for the DOE nuclear waste program. The Administration has proposed
that a blue-ribbon panel be convened in FY2010 to study waste disposal options, but no other
details have been announced. The Administration currently is continuing the Yucca Mountain
licensing process, which, under NWPA, is supposed to take no more than four years after the
license submission, which was June 3, 2008. However, Senator Reid has announced that the
Administration will seek no further repository licensing funding in FY2011.
Over the objections of the State of Nevada, NRC formally accepted the Yucca Mountain license
application for docketing and review on September 8, 2008. At the same time, NRC staff
recommended that the Commission adopt DOE’s environmental impact statement for the project,
but with a stipulation that supplemental groundwater analysis be conducted.16
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 have been
conducted at several side alcoves that were excavated off the main tunnel. Budget cuts in FY2009
have halted most activity at the Yucca Mountain site.
Private Interim Storage
In response to delays in the federal nuclear waste program, a utility consortium signed an
agreement with the Skull Valley Band of the Goshute Indians in Utah 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.17 The

16 Licensing documents are posted at http://www.rw.doe.gov/.
17 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.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.18
In reaction to the Interior Department decisions, Senator Hatch, a staunch opponent of the PFS
proposal, declared the project “stone cold dead.”19 However, the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes
and PFS filed a federal lawsuit July 17, 2007, to overturn the Interior decisions on the grounds
that they were politically motivated.20
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 raised concern that
some of EPA’s general standards might be impossible or impractical to meet at Yucca Mountain.21
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 August 1, 1995.22 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.

18 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.
19 Senator Orrin Hatch, Utahns Deliver Killing Blow to Skull Valley Nuke Waste Plan, News Release, September 7,
2006.
20 Winslow, Ben, “Gosutes, PFS Sue Interior,” Deseret Morning News, July 18, 2007.
21 See, for example: NRC, “Analysis of Energy Policy Act of 1992 Issues Related to High-Level Waste Disposal
Standards, SECY-93-013, January 25, 1993, attachment p. 4.
22 National Research Council. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. National Academy Press. 1995.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.
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.23 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 have retained the dose limits of the previous standard for
the first 10,000 years but allowed a higher annual dose of 350 millirems for the period of 10,000
years through 1 million years. EPA also proposed to base the post-10,000-year Yucca Mountain
standard on the median dose, rather than the mean, potentially making it easier to meet.24 Nevada
state officials called EPA’s proposed standard far too lenient and charged that it was “unlawful
and arbitrary.”25
EPA issued its final rule to amend the Yucca Mountain standards on September 30, 2008. The
final rule reduces the annual dose limit during the period of 10,000 through 1 million years from
the proposed 350 millirems to 100 millirems, which the agency contended was consistent with
international standards. Under the final rule, compliance with the post-10,000-year standard will
be based on the arithmetic mean of projected doses, rather than the median as proposed. The 4
millirem groundwater standard will continue to apply only to the first 10,000 years.26 NRC will
have to revise its repository licensing regulations to conform to the new EPA standards. (For more

23 Nuclear Energy Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, No. 01-1258, July 9, 2004.
24 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.
25 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.
26 Posted on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

information, see CRS Report RL34698, EPA’s Final Health and Safety Standard for Yucca
Mountain, by Bonnie C. Gitlin.)
DOE estimated in its June 2008 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for
the Yucca Mountain repository that the maximum mean annual individual dose after 10,000 years
would be 2 millirems. That is substantially below the level estimated by the 2002 Final
Environmental Impact Statement, which calculated that the peak doses—occurring after 400,000
years—would be about 150 millirems (Volume 1, Chapter 5). The FSEIS attributed the reduction
to changes in DOE’s computer model and in the assumptions used, noting that “various elements
of DOE’s modeling approach may be challenged as part of the NRC licensing process.”27
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.
Funding
The FY2010 OCRWM budget request of $198.6 million would provide only enough funding to
continue the Yucca Mountain licensing process and to evaluate alternative policies, according to
DOE. The request is about $90 million below the FY2009 funding level, which was nearly $100
million below the FY2008 level. More than 2,000 waste program contract employees will be
terminated by the end of FY2009, according to the budget justification. Most of the program’s
remaining work is to be taken over by federal staff.
All work related solely to preparing for construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain
repository is being halted, according to the DOE budget justification. Such activities include
development of repository infrastructure, waste transportation preparations, and system
engineering and analysis.
The House agreed with the Administration’s plans to provide funding solely for Yucca Mountain
licensing activities and for a blue-ribbon panel to review waste management options. The House
approved the Administration budget request, including $5 million for the blue ribbon review.
However, the House-passed bill specifies that the review must include Yucca Mountain as one of
the alternatives, despite the Administration’s contention that the site should no longer be
considered. According to the House Appropriations Committee report, “It might well be the case
that an alternative to Yucca Mountain better meets the requirements of the future strategy, but the

27 FSEIS, p. S-42. Posted on the DOE website at http://www.rw.doe.gov/ym_repository/seis/docs/002_Summary.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

review does not have scientific integrity without considering Yucca Mountain.” The House panel
also recommended that at least $70 million of the program’s funding be devoted to maintaining
expertise by the Yucca Mountain Project management contractor to support the licensing effort,
rather than relying entirely on federal staff. The Senate also recommended approval of the
Administration request, but without any restrictions on the blue ribbon panel.
Funding for the nuclear waste program is provided under two appropriations accounts, as shown
in Table 1. The Administration’s FY2010 request is divided evenly between an appropriation
from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which holds fees paid by nuclear utilities, and the Defense Nuclear
Waste Disposal account, which pays for disposal of high-level waste from the nuclear weapons
program. The Senate Appropriations Committee report calls for the Secretary of Energy to
suspend fee collections, “given the Administration’s decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain
repository program while developing disposal alternatives.”
Additional funding from the Nuclear Waste Fund for the Yucca Mountain licensing process is
included in the NRC budget request. The House provided the full $56 million requested, while
the Senate voted to cut the request to $29 million. Senator Reid, a long-time opponent of the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository, announced on July 29, 2009, that the Administration had
agreed to terminate the Yucca Mountain licensing effort in the FY2011 budget request.
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 June 30, 2009, utility nuclear waste fees and interest totaled $30.48 billion, of
which $7.295 billion had been disbursed to the waste disposal program, according to DOE’s
program summary report, leaving a balance of $23.185 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund. In
addition to the disbursements from the Nuclear Waste Fund, the waste disposal program received
defense waste disposal appropriations totaling $3.49 billion through FY2008, according to
DOE.28
DOE’s latest update of its Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management Program was released on August 5, 2008.29 According to that estimate, the
Yucca Mountain program would cost $96.2 billion in 2007 dollars from the beginning of the
program in 1983 to repository closure in 2133. DOE’s previous estimate, issued in 2001, was
$57.5 billion in 2000 dollars. Major factors in the increase are inflation and a higher estimate of
spent fuel to be generated by existing reactors. Spent fuel from proposed new reactors is not
included in the cost estimate.

28 DOE, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of Program Management, Monthly Summary of
Program Financial and Budget Information, as of July 1, 2009, available at http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/about/budget/
money.shtml. The report notes that some figures may not add due to independent rounding.
29 Available on the OCRWM website at http://www.rw.doe.gov/about/budget/pdf/TSLCC_2007_8_05_08.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Table 1. DOE Civilian Spent Fuel Management Funding
(in millions of current dollars)
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010 FY2010
FY2010
Program
Approp.
Approp.
Approp.
Request House
Senate
Yucca Mountain
298.1
267.1
—a — — —
Transportation
35.3 18.3 — — — —
Management
and
Integration
46.7 26.4 — — — —
Program
Direction
64.4 74.7 74.9 70.0 70.0 70.0
Total
445.7 386.4 288.4 196.8 196.8 196.8
Source of Funding






Nuclear Waste Fund appropriations
99.2
187.3
145.4
98.4
98.4
98.4
Defense waste appropriations
346.5
199.2
143.0
98.4
98.4
98.4
Sources: DOE FY2010 Congressional Budget Request, H.Rept. 111-203, S.Rept. 111-45.
a. Subcategories not specified.
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. 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 of the three sites closed, and the remaining two are using their
congressionally granted authority to prohibit waste from outside their regional compacts. Another
site, in Utah, has since become available nationwide for most Class A low-level waste, but no site
is currently open to nationwide disposal of all major types of low-level waste.
Despite the 1992 deadline, no new disposal sites have been opened under the Low-Level Waste
Act. 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 Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) to license adjoining 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. TCEQ voted January 14, 2009, to issue the license after the necessary
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

land and mineral rights have been acquired.30 Waste Control Specialists has predicted that the
facility could start receiving waste by mid-2010.31
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, resulting in a payment of
$145.8 million,32 and the compact is seeking 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.
The disposal facility at Barnwell, South Carolina, is currently accepting all Class A, B, and C
low-level waste from the Atlantic Compact (formerly the Northeast Compact), in which South
Carolina joined original members 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,
and a state law enacted in June 2000 phased out acceptance of non-compact waste through June
30, 2008. The Barnwell facility previously 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.
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. Since the South
Carolina facility closed to out-of-region waste, the 36 states and the District of Columbia that are
outside the Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Atlantic Compacts have had no disposal site for
Class B and C low-level waste. Waste generators in those states must store their Class B and C
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

30 TCEQ website: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/radmat/licensing/wcs_license_app.html#wcs_status.
31 Weil, Jenny, “Texas Regulators Approve License for LLW Disposal,” Inside NRC, January 19, 2009, p. 3.
32 USAToday.com, August 1, 2005, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-01-nukewaste_x.htm.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.
Under current law, the federal government’s nuclear waste disposal policy is focused on the
planned Yucca Mountain repository. However, deep funding reductions and uncertainty that have
accompanied President Obama’s plan to terminate the Yucca Mountain project have brought most
activities in the DOE waste program to a halt. Although licensing of the Yucca Mountain
repository is to continue through FY2010, DOE will face relentless opposition from the State of
Nevada and a possible funding cutoff in FY2011.
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 does not open before 2020. The nuclear industry has predicted that
future damages could reach tens of billions of dollars if the federal disposal program fails
altogether.
Lack of a nuclear waste disposal system could also affect the licensing of proposed new nuclear
plants, both because of NRC licensing guidelines and various state laws.33 In addition, further
repository delays could force DOE to miss compliance deadlines for defense waste disposal.
Problems being created by nuclear waste disposal delays would presumably be addressed by the
President’s proposed “blue ribbon” panel of experts on nuclear waste management alternatives.
Major options include centralized interim storage, continued storage at existing nuclear sites,
reprocessing and waste treatment technology, alternative repository sites, or a combination. Given
the delays resulting from the current budget cuts, longer on-site storage is almost a certainty
under any option. Any of the options would also face intense controversy, especially among states
and regions that might be potential hosts for future waste facilities. As a result, substantial debate
would be expected over any proposals to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

33 Lovell, David L., Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, State Statutes Limiting the Construction of Nuclear Power
Plants, October 5, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

Legislation
H.R. 513 (Forbes)
New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence. Includes grants and prizes for nuclear waste
treatment technology. Introduced January 14, 2009; referred to Committee on Science and
Technology.
H.R. 2250 (Burton)
Energy Independence Now Act of 2009. Includes a provision prohibiting the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission from denying a nuclear reactor license because of a lack of nuclear waste disposal
capacity. Introduced May 5, 2009; referred to multiple committees.
H.R. 2300 (Bishop)
Among other provisions, would authorize DOE to enter into temporary spent nuclear fuel storage
agreements with volunteer sites, establish payments to settle nuclear utility breach-of-contract
claims for DOE waste disposal delays, and prohibit NRC from considering nuclear waste storage
when licensing new nuclear facilities. Introduced May 7, 2009; referred to multiple committees.
H.R. 2539 (Thornberry)
No More Excuses Energy Act of 2009. Includes a provision prohibiting the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission from denying a nuclear reactor license because of a lack of nuclear waste disposal
capacity. Introduced May 5, 2009; referred to multiple committees.
H.R. 3183 (Pastor)
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Includes
funding for nuclear waste programs. Reported as an original measure by the House
Appropriations Committee July 13, 2009. Passed House July 17, 2009, by vote of 320-97
(H.Rept. 111-203); passed Senate July 29, 2009, by vote of 85-9 (S.Rept. 111-45).
H.R. 3385 (Barton)
Would authorize DOE to use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for grants or long-term contracts for
spent nuclear fuel recycling or reprocessing and place the Waste Fund off-budget. Introduced July
29, 2009; referred to committees on Energy and Commerce and the Budget.
S. 591 (Reid)
National Commission on High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Establishment
Act of 2009. Would establish a national commission to study nuclear waste management
improvements. Introduced March 12, 2009; referred to Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

S. 807 (Nelson of Nebraska)
SMART Energy Act. Includes provision authorizing DOE to begin construction of a spent fuel
recycling research and development facility. Introduced April 2, 2009; referred to Committee on
Finance.
S. 861 (Graham)
Rebating America’s Deposits Act. Requires the President to certify that the Yucca Mountain site
continues to be the designated location for a nuclear waste repository under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act. If such a certification is not made within 30 days after enactment or is subsequently
revoked, the Treasury is to refund all payments, plus interest, made by nuclear reactor owners to
the Nuclear Waste Fund. DOE is to begin shipping defense-related high-level radioactive waste to
Yucca Mountain by 2017 or pay $1 million per day to each state in which such waste is located.
Introduced April 22, 2009; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 1333 (Barrasso)
Clean, Affordable, and Reliable Energy Act of 2009. Includes provisions to take the Nuclear
Waste Fund off-budget, authorize DOE to use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for grants or long-
term contracts for spent nuclear fuel recycling or reprocessing, and prohibit NRC from denying
licenses for new nuclear facilities because of a lack of waste disposal capacity. Introduced June
24, 2009; referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 1462 (Bingaman)
American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009. Includes provision to establish a federal
commission to study nuclear waste management alternatives and make recommendations to
Congress. Approved by Energy and Natural Resources Committee June 17, 2009, and reported as
an original bill July 16, 2009 (S.Rept. 111-48).
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.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal

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. September 2008.
http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/reports.html
University of Illinois. Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security. ‘Plan
D’ for Spent Nuclear Fuel. 2009. http://acdis.illinois.edu/publications/207/publication-
PlanDforSpentNuclearFuel.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.
Walker, J. Samuel. The Road to Yucca Mountain: The Development of Radioactive Waste Policy
in the United States. University of California Press. 2009. 228 p.

Author Contact Information

Mark Holt

Specialist in Energy Policy
mholt@crs.loc.gov, 7-1704




Congressional Research Service
21

---