For example, DOE is responsible for managing spent nuclear  fuel from the Navy through the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, which  is jointly operated by DOE and the Navy. DOE currently stores its inventories of nuclear waste at five DOE sites. Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Could Threaten DOE’s and the Navy’s Ability to Fulfill Agreements with Colorado and Idaho

The five states with DOE sites storing nuclear waste have agreements with  DOE, and in one case with the Navy, regarding how nuclear waste will be  managed. DOE and the Navy may be faced with significant penalties for missing  these removal milestones. For example, under the Idaho Settlement  Agreement, the federal government may be liable to pay the state $60,000  for each day past January 1, 2035, that DOE and the Navy have not  removed their spent nuclear fuel from the state. Under the Colorado state  agreement, DOE may be liable to pay the state $15,000 for each day after  January 1, 2035, that DOE fails to remove its spent nuclear fuel. Under the Idaho Settlement Agreement, the state may also have the ability  to suspend any further DOE or Navy shipments of spent nuclear fuel to  DOE’s Idaho site until the agreement’s obligation for removal of spent  nuclear fuel is met. They stated  that the 25 years remaining to remove spent nuclear fuel from Idaho may  not be enough time to establish an alternative repository, but they noted  that the Idaho Settlement Agreement does not require the spent nuclear  fuel to be sent to the Yucca Mountain repository, only that it be removed  from Idaho. Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Would Not Affect Near-Term Operations at DOE Sites but Would Likely Extend On-Site Storage of Nuclear Waste

According to DOE and Navy officials, a termination of the Yucca Mountain  repository would not generally affect their nuclear waste operations in the  near term. EM estimates that it could need an additional $918 million (2010 dollars)  to extend storage if the opening of a permanent repository were delayed  from 2020 to 2040. It is difficult to accurately estimate these increased on-site storage costs  because of three key factors. Additional Information on Storage Facilities and Any Unique Storage Needs Would Be Required for DOE to Plan for Longer Storage

EM officials told us that DOE can extend storage of spent nuclear fuel and  high-level waste on DOE sites for some time but will need additional  information on storage facilities to plan storage beyond the time set forth  in the current site plans. EM officials said EM currently has no research plan for very long- term storage for the wastes at DOE sites. DOE and the Navy Have Not Developed Plans to Mitigate the Impact of Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository on Nuclear Waste Storage

EM and Navy officials told us they will not make any mitigation plans until  those plans can be informed by the Blue Ribbon Commission’s  recommendations, which are expected by January 29, 2012. For some years after the commission’s recommendations are available,  however, DOE and the Navy could experience difficulties planning how to  mitigate the impact of a termination because uncertainties about the  alternative to the Yucca Mountain repository may take time to resolve. In addition, because it is not clear how specific  the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations will be, it may take DOE  additional work and time to use these recommendations to develop a new  nuclear waste management policy. A termination of Yucca Mountain, however, may threaten DOE’s and the  Navy’s ability to meet state commitments. For  example, it is not known how long the lives of existing facilities can be  extended or what will happen to the waste or the storage containers  during long-term on-site storage. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help prepare for longer storage of nuclear waste at DOE sites, we  recommend the Secretary of Energy direct the Assistant Secretary for  Environmental Management, and other DOE officials as appropriate, to  take the following two actions:    Assess the condition of existing nuclear waste storage facilities and the  resources and information needed to extend the facilities’ useful lifetimes. Identify any gap between past and ongoing research into long-term nuclear  waste storage and any additional actions needed to address DOE’s unique  waste storage needs. DOE disagreed with parts of the draft report that stated there would likely  be a delay in removing waste from DOE sites and increased costs as a  result of DOE's decision to terminate the proposed repository at Yucca  Mountain.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for storing and managing a total of about 13,000 metric tons of nuclear waste--spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste--at five DOE sites in Colorado, Idaho, New York, South Carolina, and Washington. Also, a joint DOE-Navy program stores spent nuclear fuel from warships at DOE's Idaho site. DOE and the Navy intended to permanently dispose of this nuclear waste at a repository planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, that plan is now in question because of actions taken to terminate the site. This report assesses (1) agreements DOE and the Navy have with states at the five sites and the effects a termination of the Yucca Mountain repository would have on their ability to fulfill these agreements; (2) the effects a termination would have on DOE's and the Navy's operations and costs for storing the waste; and (3) DOE's and the Navy's plans to mitigate these potential effects. GAO reviewed state agreements and DOE plans, visited waste facilities, and interviewed federal and state officials.

What GAO Found

Five states have agreements with DOE, and in one case with the Navy, regarding the storage, treatment, or disposal of nuclear waste stored at DOE sites. Only agreements with Colorado and Idaho include deadlines, or milestones, for removing waste from sites that may be threatened by a termination of the Yucca Mountain repository program. Under the agreements, DOE and the Navy are expected to remove their spent nuclear fuel from Idaho, and DOE is to remove its fuel from Colorado, by January 1, 2035. If a repository is not available to accept the waste, however, DOE and the Navy could miss these milestones. As a result, the government could face significant penalties--$60,000 for each day the waste remains in Idaho and $15,000 for each day the waste remains in Colorado--after January 1, 2035. These penalties could total about $27.4 million annually. Navy officials told GAO, however, their greater concern is that Idaho might suspend Navy shipments of spent nuclear fuel to the state until the Navy meets its agreement to remove spent nuclear fuel, a suspension that would interfere with the Navy's ability to refuel its nuclear warships. Terminating the Yucca Mountain repository would not affect DOE's or the Navy's nuclear waste operations on DOE sites in the near term, according to DOE and Navy officials. But it would likely extend on-site storage and increase storage costs, which could be substantial. For example, an EM analysis estimates that EM could need an additional $918 million to extend storage, assuming a 20-year delay in a repository's opening. Since it is not known when an alternative to Yucca Mountain will be available, it is difficult to estimate the total additional storage costs stemming from terminating the repository. Although EM officials told GAO that DOE can extend storage of nuclear waste on DOE sites for some time, additional information is needed to plan for longer storage. For instance, DOE does not know how long the lives of existing storage facilities can be extended beyond estimates in current site plans. In addition, although research is being planned for long-term storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel beyond 120 years, DOE has no plan for comparable research focusing on its unique long-term waste storage needs. DOE and the Navy have not yet developed plans to mitigate the potential effects of longer storage resulting from a termination of the Yucca Mountain repository. EM and Navy officials said they are waiting for recommendations from a Blue Ribbon Commission that DOE created in 2010 to clarify future nuclear waste management alternatives. Even after the commission's recommendations are available, however, DOE could face difficulties in planning how to mitigate the impact of a termination of the repository. For example, because it is not clear how specific the commission's recommendations will be, it may take time to develop the recommendations into a new nuclear waste management policy. Further, some recommendations may not lead to a solution soon enough to meet existing waste removal milestones. DOE and the Navy said it was too early to change existing plans since no final disposition path for the waste has been determined.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOE (1) assess existing nuclear waste storage facilities and the resources and information needed to extend their useful lifetimes and (2) identify any additional research needed to address DOE's unique needs for long-term waste storage. DOE agreed with the recommendations, but objected to some of GAO's findings, which GAO continues to believe are sound.