Spent Nuclear Fuel: Legislative, Technical, and Societal Challenges to Its Transportation
Published: 2015-10-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Spent nuclear fuel—the used fuel removed from commercial nuclear power reactors—is an extremely harmful substance if not managed properly. The nation's inventory of spent nuclear fuel has grown to about 72,000 metric tons currently stored at 75 sites in 33 states, primarily where it was generated.
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, DOE was to investigate Yucca Mountain, a site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. DOE terminated its work at Yucca Mountain in 2010 and now plans to transport the spent nuclear fuel to interim storage sites beginning in 2021 and 2024, then to a permanent disposal site by 2048. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is a major element of any policy adopted to manage and dispose of spent nuclear fuel.
This testimony discusses three key challenges related to transporting spent nuclear fuel: legislative, technical, and societal. It is based on reports GAO issued from November 2009 to October 2014.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Based on its prior work, GAO found three key challenges related to the transportation of spent nuclear fuel: legislative, technical, and societal.
Societal challenges . As GAO reported in October 2014, public acceptance is key for any aspect of a spent nuclear fuel management and disposition program—including transporting it—and maintaining that acceptance over the decades needed to implement a spent fuel management program is challenging. In that regard, GAO reported that in order for stakeholders and the general public to support any spent nuclear fuel program—particularly one for which a site has not been identified—there must be a broad understanding of the issues associated with management of spent nuclear fuel. Also, GAO found that some organizations that oppose DOE have effectively used social media to promote their agendas to the public, but that DOE had no coordinated outreach strategy, including social media. GAO recommended that DOE develop and implement a coordinated outreach strategy for providing information to the public on their spent nuclear fuel program. DOE generally agreed with GAO's recommendation.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making no new recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on issues related to  transportation of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Spent nuclear fuel—used  nuclear fuel that has been removed from the reactor core of a nuclear  power reactor—is an extremely harmful substance if not managed  properly. Without protective shielding, its intense radioactivity can kill a  person who is directly exposed to it or cause long-term health hazards,  such as cancer. In addition, if not managed properly, or if released by a  natural disaster or an act of terrorism, it could contaminate the  environment with radiation. The nation’s inventory of spent nuclear fuel  from commercial nuclear power reactors—which amounts to about  72,000 metric tons— is stored at 75 sites in 33 states, generally where it  was generated. The spent nuclear fuel is stored either wet in pools of  water or dry in storage systems that typically consist of stainless steel  canisters within protective casks. Dry storage systems are designed with  thick steel and concrete walls to provide radiation shielding and passive  pathways for removal of spent nuclear fuel decay heat, such as air vents  in the casks. Transporting the spent nuclear fuel anywhere depends on  the policy that is ultimately put into place for management and final  disposition of the spent nuclear fuel.
National policy for the disposition of spent nuclear fuel dates to the  passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), which made  disposal of spent nuclear fuel a federal responsibility.Department of Energy (DOE) to investigate sites for a permanent  repository. In 1987, Congress amended the act to direct DOE to focus its   NWPA directed the  efforts only on a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, about 100 miles  northwest of Las Vegas. In 2008, DOE submitted a license application for  a repository at Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission  (NRC), which is responsible for regulating storage, transportation, and  disposal of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power reactors.  Then, in a change of policy in 2009, the Secretary of Energy said that a  repository at Yucca Mountain was not a workable option and, in 2010,  DOE terminated its efforts to license a repository there. In 2010, DOE  chartered the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to  recommend a plan for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. In  January 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its report. Among  other things, the commission recommended that DOE consider  consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and develop a consent- based approach to locating or establishing (or “siting”) future spent  nuclear fuel management facilities. In January 2013, DOE issued a  strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel in response to the commission’s  recommendations. The strategy calls for the federal government to begin  accepting spent nuclear fuel for management at a pilot interim storage  facility by 2021 and at a larger consolidated interim storage facility by  2025, then begin disposal at a permanent repository by 2048. According  to the strategy, it represents “an initial basis for discussions among the  Administration, Congress and other stakeholders on a sustainable path  forward for disposal” of spent nuclear fuel and other types of high-level  radioactive waste.
Over the past decade, we have issued a number of reports related to the  management of spent nuclear fuel. My testimony today discusses the  three key challenges related to transporting spent nuclear fuel that we  have identified in our prior work. Generally speaking, challenges related  to transportation fall into one of three categories: legislative, technical, or  societal. I will discuss each of these categories. This testimony is based  on reports we issued from November 2009 to October 2014.  In  particular, I will be highlighting our October 2014 report on spent nuclear  fuel management. For this work, we reviewed documents and interviewed  officials from DOE and NRC regarding their regulatory roles related to  spent nuclear fuel management. In addition, we obtained input from  experts and stakeholders in spent nuclear fuel management. A detailed  discussion of our scope and methodologies can be found in each of our  published reports. We conducted the work that this testimony is based on  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform audits to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The transportation of large amounts of spent fuel to an interim storage or  permanent disposal location is inherently complex and the planning and  implementation may take decades to accomplish. The actual time it would  take depends on a number of variables including distance, quantity of  material, mode of transport, rate of shipment, level of security, and  coordination with state and local authorities. For example, according to  officials from a state regional organization we interviewed and the Blue  Ribbon Commission report, transportation planning could take about 10  years, in part because routes have to be agreed upon, first responders  have to be trained, and critical elements of infrastructure and equipment  need to be designed and deployed.
section_title: Legislative Challenges to Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel
paragraphs: As we previously reported, DOE does not have clear legislative authority  for either consolidated interim storage or for permanent disposal at a site  other than Yucca Mountain and, as such, there is no facility to which DOE  can transport commercial spent nuclear fuel. Without clear authority, DOE  cannot make the transportation decisions necessary regarding  commercial spent nuclear fuel.
Specifically, as we reported in November 2009, August 2012, and  October 2014, provisions in NWPA that authorize DOE to arrange for  consolidated interim storage have either expired or are unusable because  they are tied to milestones in the development of a repository at Yucca  Mountain that have not been met. DOE officials and experts from  industry we interviewed in October 2014 agreed with this assessment,  and noted that the federal government’s ability to site, license, construct,  and operate a consolidated interim storage facility not tied to Yucca  Mountain depends on new legislative authority.
For permanent disposal, we reported in April 2011,  that developing a  permanent repository other than Yucca Mountain will restart the likely  time-consuming and costly process of siting, licensing, and developing  such a repository and it is uncertain what legislative changes might be  needed, if any, to develop a new repository. In part, this is because  NWPA, as amended, directs DOE to terminate all site specific activities at  candidate sites other than Yucca Mountain.
GAO-11-229.
section_title: Technical Challenges to Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel
paragraphs: As we reported in October 2014, experts identified technical challenges  that could affect the transportation of spent nuclear fuel and these  challenges could be resolved with sufficient time. The three technical  challenges the experts described were (1) uncertainties related to the  safety of high burn-up fuel during transportation,nuclear fuel to be transported under current guidelines, and (3) sufficiency  of the infrastructure to support transportation.   (2) readiness of spent  Before 2000, most fuel discharged from U.S. nuclear power reactors was  considered low burn-up fuel and, consequently, the industry has had  decades of experience in transporting it. As we reported in October 2014,  various reports from DOE, NRC, the Electric Power Research Institute,  and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, as well as experts we  interviewed, agreed that uncertainties exist on how long high burn-up  fuel—used for about 10 years— can be stored and then still be safely  transported. Once sealed in a canister, the spent fuel cannot easily be  inspected for degradation. We reported that as of August 2014, NRC  officials told us that they had analyzed laboratory tests and models  developed to predict the changes that occur during dry storage and that  the results indicate that high burn-up fuel will maintain its integrity over  very long periods of storage and can eventually be safely transported.  However, NRC officials said they continued to seek additional evidence to  confirm their position that long-term storage and transportation of high  burn-up spent nuclear fuel is safe. We also reported that DOE and the  Electric Power Research Institute have planned a joint development  project to test high burn-up fuel for degradation, but those results will not  be available for about a decade.
As we reported in October 2014,storage of spent nuclear fuel allow higher temperatures and external  radiation levels than guidelines for transporting the fuel, some of the  spent nuclear fuel in dry storage may not be readily transportable. For  example, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, as of 2012, only  about 30 percent of spent nuclear fuel currently in dry storage is cool   because the guidelines governing dry  enough to be directly transportable. For safety reasons, transportation  guidelines do not allow the surface of the transportation cask to exceed  185 degrees Fahrenheit (85 degrees Celsius) because the spent nuclear  fuel is traveling through public areas using the nation’s public  transportation infrastructure. NRC’s guidelines on spent nuclear fuel dry  storage limit spent nuclear fuel temperature to 752 degrees Fahrenheit  (400 degrees Celsius). Scientists from the national laboratories and  experts from industry we interviewed suggested three options for dealing  with the stored spent nuclear fuel so it can be transported safely: (1)  leave it to cool and decay at reactor sites, (2) repackage it into smaller  canisters that reduce the heat and radiation, or (3) develop a special  transportation “overpack” to safely transport the spent nuclear fuel in the  current large canisters. However, as we reported in August 2012, spent  nuclear fuel stored at reactor sites that had already shut down and  dismantled their infrastructure may pose an even more difficult challenge  because the ability to repackage the fuel or develop similar solutions may  be limited without building additional infrastructure, such as a special  transfer facility, or the spent fuel would need to be shipped to a site that  had a transfer facility.
See DOE, Office of Fuel Cycle and Research Development, A Project Concept for  Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation, FCRD-NFST-2013-000132 Rev. 1 (June 15,  2013).
2013, DOE completed a preliminary technical evaluation of options  available and needed infrastructure for DOE or a new waste management  and disposal organization to transport spent nuclear fuel from shut-down  sites to a consolidated interim storage facility. According to DOE officials,  there was no need to make a decision regarding how best to move  forward with the study results because there was, at that time, no site and  no authorization to site, license, construct, and operate a consolidated  interim storage facility. We also reported in October 2014 that procuring  qualified railcars may be a time-consuming process, in part because of  the design, testing, and approval for a railcar that meets specific  Association of American Railroads standards for transporting spent  nuclear fuel.
section_title: Societal Challenges to Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel
paragraphs: As we found in October 2014, public acceptance is key to any aspect of a  spent nuclear fuel management and disposition program, including  transportation. Specifically, unless and until there is a broad  understanding of the issues associated with management of spent  nuclear fuel, specific stakeholders and the general public may be unlikely  to support any spent nuclear fuel program. In particular, a program that  has not yet been developed or for which a site has not been identified  may have challenges in obtaining public acceptance. This finding is not  new and, in April 2011 and in October 2014 we found reports spanning  several decades that identified societal and political opposition as the key   For example, in 1982, the  obstacles to spent nuclear fuel management.congressional Office of Technology Assessment reported that public and  political opposition were key factors to siting and building a repository.  The National Research Council of the National Academies reiterated this  conclusion in a 2001 report, stating that the most significant challenge to  siting and commencing operations at a repository is societal. Our analysis  of stakeholder and expert comments indicates the societal and political  factors opposing a repository are the same for a consolidated interim  storage facility.
Moreover, we reported in April 2011 and October 2014 that any spent  nuclear fuel management program is going to take decades to develop  and to implement and that maintaining public acceptance over that length  of time will face significant challenges. We also reported in November  2009, that the nation could not be certain that future generations would  have the willingness or ability to maintain decades-long programs we put  into place today.nuclear fuel more than once, which may be required if some spent  nuclear fuel is moved to an interim storage facility prior to permanent  disposal. Some stakeholders have voiced concerns that because of this  opposition to multiple transport events, a consolidated interim storage site  may become a de facto permanent storage site.
Of particular concern is having to transport spent  In October 2014, we reported that according to experts and stakeholders,  social media has been used effectively to provide information to the public  through coordinated outreach efforts by organizations with an interest in  spent nuclear fuel policy. Some of these organizations oppose DOE’s  strategy and the information they distribute reflects their agendas. In  contrast, we reported that DOE had no coordinated outreach strategy,  including social media. We concluded that in the absence of a  coordinated outreach strategy by DOE, specific stakeholders and the  general public may not have complete or accurate information about the  agency’s activities, making it more difficult for the federal government to  move forward with any policy to manage spent nuclear fuel. We  recommended that DOE develop and implement a coordinate outreach  strategy for providing information to specific stakeholders and the general  public on federal activities related to managing spent nuclear fuel—which  would include transportation planning. DOE generally agreed with our  recommendation.
Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony,  please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points  for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this testimony. Karla Springer (Assistant  Director), and Antoinette Capaccio, Robert Sánchez, and Kiki  Theodoropoulos also made key contributions to this testimony.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.