Nuclear Waste:

Monitored Retrievable Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

RCED-86-104FS: Published: May 8, 1986. Publicly Released: May 15, 1986.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) program for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) of spent nuclear fuel, including: (1) the purpose of the MRS program; (2) Tennessee's role in the development of the DOE MRS proposal and its role in future MRS activities; (3) the potential benefits and disadvantages of the MRS program; (4) the impact of siting an MRS facility in Tennessee; and (5) the results of a survey of utilities affected by DOE nuclear waste management activities.

GAO found that: (1) the primary purpose of the MRS program is to develop a facility to receive and prepare spent nuclear fuel for shipment to a permanent geological repository; (2) DOE identified three sites in Tennessee as acceptable for an MRS facility and chose one site as most preferable; (3) Tennessee sued DOE, alleging that DOE failed to timely consult with it about the site selection; (4) the court enjoined DOE from making any MRS proposal to Congress that was based on information DOE obtained before it consulted with Tennessee; and (5) the injunction will remain effective until a DOE appeal has been resolved. GAO also found that an MRS facility would: (1) improve the development of nuclear waste management by allowing DOE to begin regulatory activities earlier; (2) improve the reliability, flexibility, and efficiency of DOE waste management; (3) improve waste transportation operations; (4) increase system costs and regulatory requirements; (5) increase the complexity of the system and geographically redistribute waste shipments; (6) significantly increase the Nuclear Waste Fund's short-term cash requirements; and (7) have significant local economic impacts, but minimal environmental impacts. GAO also found that: (1) most of the utilities it surveyed believe that they can provide for their spent-fuel storage needs until DOE makes a repository available, unless the repository program falls seriously behind schedule; and (2) while more utilities support an MRS facility than oppose one, more utilities would prefer a system with only a geological repository.

Sep 14, 2016

Sep 8, 2016

Aug 11, 2016

Aug 9, 2016

Aug 4, 2016

Jul 15, 2016

Jul 14, 2016

Jun 20, 2016

Mar 3, 2016

Looking for more? Browse all our products here