This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-847 
entitled 'Yucca Mountain: Information on Alternative Uses of the Site 
and Related Challenges' which was released on October 17, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate: 

September 2011: 

Yucca Mountain: 

Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related Challenges: 

GAO-11-847: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-847, a report to the Majority Leader, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The future of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada—-originally 
designated for permanent storage of nuclear waste-—is uncertain. Since 
1983, the Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars to 
evaluate the Yucca Mountain site for potential use as a nuclear waste 
repository. In February 2010, the President proposed eliminating 
funding for the project, and in March 2010, DOE filed a motion to 
withdraw its license application. Stakeholders—-federal officials, 
state and local government officials, private companies, and others––
have expressed interest in whether the site’s characteristics are 
suitable for alternative uses. 

GAO was asked to examine alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site. 
This report examines: (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain 
site; (2) stakeholders’ proposed alternative uses, and experts’ 
evaluations of them; and (3) challenges, if any, in pursuing 
alternative uses. We selected a nonprobability sample of experts that 
included experts affiliated with nationally recognized research 
organizations, universities, and national laboratories, and that did 
not represent or benefit from any of the stakeholders’ proposed 
alternative uses of the site. Using a data collection instrument, we 
elicited comments from these experts on stakeholders’ proposed uses. 
The alternative uses discussed in this report reflect the alternative 
uses these stakeholders proposed; they may not reflect all potential 
uses of the site. This report contains no recommendations. Interior 
generally agreed with our findings, while DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and 
NRC neither agreed nor disagreed. 

What GAO Found: 

The Yucca Mountain site has several geographical, structural, and 
geophysical characteristics that may be relevant in considering 
potential alternative uses. Geographically, the site spans a large 
land area in a remote part of Nevada and partially includes some of 
the lands of two adjacent highly-secure national security sites—the 
Air Force’s Nevada Test and Training Range and DOE’s Nevada National 
Security Site. The site’s lands were historically under the control of 
three federal agencies: DOE, the Department of Defense, and the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) under the Department of the Interior. The 
most notable structural features include two large tunnels-—one about 
5 miles long and 25 feet in diameter, and another 2 miles long that 
branches off of the main tunnel. Geophysically, the Yucca Mountain 
area is semiarid and has little surface water; is comprised of strong, 
very low permeability volcanic rock; and is located in an area with 
low levels of seismic activity. 

Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca 
Mountain site; however, there was no broad consensus regarding the 
benefits and challenges of these uses among the experts we consulted. 
The alternative uses span five broad categories: (1) nuclear or 
radiological uses, such as locating a nuclear reprocessing complex at 
or near the site; (2) defense or homeland security activities, such as 
testing systems to detect and identify radioactive materials; (3) 
information technology uses, such as secure electronic data storage; 
(4) energy development or storage, such as using the site for 
renewable energy development; and (5) scientific research, such as 
geology or mining research. While some experts we contacted identified 
benefits of the site for certain uses, experts also noted that many of 
these proposed uses would be costly and may face significant 
challenges. Several experts also noted that Yucca Mountain’s 
characteristics would not be critical to a number of the proposed 
uses, and that many could be undertaken elsewhere. 

Alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site face a number of legal and 
administrative challenges. First, DOE’s withdrawal of its application 
to build a repository at Yucca Mountain is subject to continuing legal 
proceedings, and resolution of these proceedings could preclude or 
significantly delay alternative uses of the site. Second, potential 
litigation regarding mining claims may affect alternative uses of the 
site. Following the 2010 expiration of a land withdrawal order, 35 
mining claims were recorded and processed by BLM. Although BLM 
declared these claims void in August 2011, their legitimacy could be 
litigated, which could delay or pose challenges to alternative uses of 
the site. Third, because control of the site is divided among three 
different federal agencies, potential alternative uses may face 
challenges related to management of the site’s lands. Fourth, 
potential alternative uses of the site may be limited by national 
security activities that currently take place on adjacent lands. 
Fifth, as with any activity, proposed uses of the site will require 
the user to comply with applicable federal and state regulations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-847] or key 
components. For more information, contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-
3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Yucca Mountain Has Geographical, Structural, and Geophysical 
Characteristics: 

Stakeholders Proposed Various Alternative Uses but Experts Cited 
Significant Challenges to Some Uses and Noted that Many Could Be 
Undertaken Elsewhere: 

Pursuing Alternative Uses of the Yucca Mountain Site Could Face Legal 
and Administrative Challenges: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Concepts Proposed for Potential Alternative Uses of the 
Yucca Mountain Site Documented by GAO: 

Appendix III: List of Experts GAO Consulted: 

Appendix IV: Description of Buildings and Facilities on the Yucca 
Mountain Site: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Nuclear 
Category: 

Table 2: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Defense 
and Homeland Security Category: 

Table 3: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the 
Information Technology Category: 

Table 4: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Energy 
Development or Storage Category: 

Table 5: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Scientific 
Research Category: 

Table 6: Description of Buildings and Facilities at the Yucca Mountain 
Site: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Regional Location of Yucca Mountain Site: 

Figure 2: Map of Location of Yucca Mountain Site and Agency Land 
Management: 

Figure 3: Schematic of Yucca Mountain Tunnels: 

Figure 4: Photos of the Yucca Mountain North Portal Tunnel Entrance 
and the Interior of the Main Tunnel: 

Figure 5: Map Showing Federal Management Status of the Yucca Mountain 
Site: 

Figure 6: Map Showing Locations of Mining Claims in Relation to Yucca 
Mountain Tunnel: 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

Interior: Department of the Interior: 

NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 16, 2011: 

The Honorable Harry Reid:
Majority Leader:
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Reid: 

The United States has relied on electricity produced by nuclear power 
plants for more than 50 years. As a byproduct, the plants also produce 
highly radioactive materials that the federal government has planned 
to dispose of in a deep underground facility. Since 1983, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) has spent billions of dollars to study the 
Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for potential use as a nuclear waste 
repository. Activities at the site have included investigating the 
characteristics of the site, building tunnels and other 
infrastructure, and developing and submitting an application for a 
license to construct a nuclear waste repository there. Despite this 
investment and the years of study, opinions differ on whether a 
repository should be located at the Yucca Mountain site. In 2009 and 
2010, DOE and the administration took steps to terminate the Yucca 
Mountain repository program; legal proceedings concerning some of 
these actions continue. 

The Yucca Mountain site comprises 230 square miles of federal land, 
including Yucca Mountain.[Footnote 1] The site is located in a remote 
area of the Mojave Desert in southern Nevada. The area in and around 
Yucca Mountain was subject to three decades of extensive studies for 
suitability as a nuclear waste repository--making it, according to 
some experts, one of the most studied sites in the world. During the 
course of these studies, DOE made several changes to the site, 
including boring two large tunnels into the rock under Yucca Mountain, 
among other things. Some stakeholders--federal officials, state and 
local government officials, private companies, and others--have 
expressed interest in alternative uses for the site that they believe 
may benefit from its characteristics. In this context, you asked us to 
examine alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site. Specifically, we 
examined: (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site; (2) 
alternative uses stakeholders have proposed that may utilize these 
characteristics, and experts' evaluations of those uses; and (3) 
challenges, if any, in pursuing alternative uses. 

To examine the characteristics of the site, we inspected parts of the 
site to assess its condition and conduct a limited assessment of 
existing assets.[Footnote 2] We reviewed documents, including DOE's 
license application and environmental impact statements. We 
interviewed current and former federal officials with knowledge of the 
site, including officials from DOE, the U.S. Air Force in the 
Department of Defense (DOD), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
in the Department of the Interior (Interior). To examine proposed 
alternative uses, we contacted officials from federal, state, and 
local government agencies; DOE national laboratories; private firms; 
and others to identify stakeholders with ideas for alternative uses of 
the Yucca Mountain site. We asked stakeholders to generate a list of 
alternative uses. However, because the site has long been expected to 
be the future site of a permanent nuclear waste repository and has not 
been the subject of widespread consideration for other purposes, it is 
important to note that the alternative uses discussed in this report 
may not reflect all of the potential alternative uses for the site. In 
order to identify experts to comment on the stakeholders' proposed 
uses in each of the five broad categories, we approached experts 
within nationally recognized organizations, including the National 
Academy of Sciences, the Brookings Institution, and the RAND 
Corporation, as well as other experts we knew of from our work in 
these areas. We asked these experts to recommend other experts we 
should include in this effort. We also took steps to ensure that all 
of these experts could provide independent and objective opinions on 
the proposed uses, including ensuring that none of them had any 
financial or nonfinancial interests in any of the potential uses and 
that they did not represent, advocate for, or benefit from any of the 
stakeholders' proposed alternative uses of the site. From the list of 
experts generated, we selected a nonprobability sample of 16 experts 
to comment on the proposed alternative uses. Appendix III lists the 
experts we consulted. We asked experts to respond to a structured data 
collection instrument with questions on whether the potential uses 
would utilize the site's characteristics and the benefits of and 
challenges to the potential alternative uses. The scope of our work 
did not include asking experts to evaluate the benefits of not using 
the site for any use; moreover, no one we contacted for proposals 
documented a proposal that the site not be used. To evaluate the 
extent to which any of the potential alternative uses could conflict 
with current or anticipated missions at the sites, we interviewed 
officials from federal agencies operating at the adjacent Nevada 
National Security Site and Nevada Test and Training Range.[Footnote 3] 
To identify statutory, regulatory, and other challenges that would 
have to be addressed to pursue alternative uses of the site, we 
reviewed relevant laws and statutes and interviewed officials from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and General Services Administration; state officials from 
Nevada, including the State Engineer and officials from the Nevada 
Attorney General's office; and local officials, including officials 
from Nye and Clark counties. See appendix I for additional information 
about our scope and methodology. 

We conducted our work from October 2010 to September 2011 in 
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that 
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan 
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate 
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations 
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and 
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings 
and conclusions in this product. 

Background: 

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 directed DOE to investigate sites 
for a federal geologic repository to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants and some 
defense activities. DOE studied six sites in the West and three sites 
in the South, and by 1986, DOE recommended three candidate sites for 
site characterization: Hanford in Washington state, Deaf Smith County 
in Texas, and Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In 1987, however, Congress 
amended the act to direct DOE to focus its efforts only on Yucca 
Mountain--a site about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Under 
the amendment, DOE was to perform studies to determine if the site was 
suitable for a repository. Since 1987, DOE studied the site, in 
conjunction with its national laboratories, its private contractors, 
and other federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey. In 
addition, DOE was authorized to contract with commercial nuclear 
reactor operators to take custody of their spent nuclear fuel for 
disposal at the repository beginning in January 1998. Ultimately, DOE 
was unable to begin receiving waste by 1998 because of a series of 
delays due to, among other things, state and local opposition to the 
construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository in Nevada and 
technical complexities.[Footnote 4] 

In June 2008, DOE submitted a license application to the NRC seeking 
authorization to construct a high-level nuclear waste repository at 
Yucca Mountain.[Footnote 5] In the application, DOE stated that it 
planned to open the repository in 2017. DOE later delayed the date to 
2020. In March 2009, however, the Secretary of Energy announced plans 
to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program and instead study 
other nuclear waste options. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget 
proposal, released in February 2010, proposed eliminating all funding 
for the Yucca Mountain repository program.[Footnote 6] At about the 
same time, the administration directed DOE to establish a Blue Ribbon 
Commission of experts to conduct a comprehensive review of policies 
for managing spent nuclear fuel, including all alternatives for the 
storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent 
nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste. The commission provided an 
interim report in July 2011 and plans to release a final report by 
January 2012.[Footnote 7] 

On March 3, 2010, DOE submitted a motion to the NRC's Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board to withdraw its license application with 
prejudice, a term described by DOE to mean the Yucca Mountain site 
would be excluded from further consideration as a repository site. On 
June 29, 2010, the licensing board denied DOE's motion, ruling that 
DOE was obligated under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, to continue with the licensing effort. The board noted that, 
even if the NRC approved the license application, there was no 
guarantee the Yucca Mountain repository would ever be constructed for 
any number of reasons, including congressional action changing the law 
or a decision by Congress not to fund the proposed repository. In the 
meantime, DOE took steps to dismantle the Yucca Mountain repository 
program by the end of September 2010. 

The lands of the Yucca Mountain site in southern Nevada partially 
include some of the lands of two large federal sites: DOE's Nevada 
National Security Site (formerly the Nevada Test Site) and DOD's 
Nevada Test and Training Range (formerly the Nellis Air Force Range). 
The site comprises the following lands historically under the control 
of three federal agencies--DOE, the U.S. Air Force within DOD, and 
Interior's BLM (see figure 1): 

* lands from DOE's Nevada National Security Site, managed by the 
National Nuclear Security Administration; 

* lands from the U.S. Air Force's Nevada Test and Training Range; and: 

* lands managed by BLM's Southern Nevada District Office's Pahrump 
Field Office. 

Figure 1: Regional Location of Yucca Mountain Site: 

[Refer to PDF for image: regional site map] 

Location of Yucca Mountain Site is depicted in relation to the 
following: 

Beatty, Nevada; 
Nevada National Security Site (DOE); 
Nevada Test and Training Range (Air Force): 
Other Federal lands; 
Indian Springs, Nevada; 
Mercury, Nevada; 
Alamo, Nevada; 
Las Vegas, Nevada; 
Amargosa Valley, Nevada. 

Sources: GAO analysis of GAO, BLM, and DOE data. 

[End of figure] 

Yucca Mountain Has Geographical, Structural, and Geophysical 
Characteristics: 

The Yucca Mountain site's geography, structures, and geophysical 
characteristics could offer benefits or pose challenges to proposed 
future alternative uses of the site.[Footnote 8] Geographical 
characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site include a remote location 
and the potential to be made highly secure. Structural site features 
include two large tunnels, several permanent and temporary buildings, 
and access to some utilities. Geophysically, the decades of study of 
the Yucca Mountain site have determined that the site has little 
surface water or groundwater, structurally stable volcanic rock, and 
low levels of seismic activity. 

Geographical Characteristics Include a Remote Location and Potential 
for High Security: 

The 230-square-mile Yucca Mountain site is in a remote area in Nye 
County, Nevada. The closest major city, Las Vegas, Nevada, is about 
100 miles away and the nearest town, the unincorporated Amargosa 
Valley--estimated population 1,000--is located about 14 miles from the 
tunnel entrances (see figure 2). 

Figure 2: Map of Location of Yucca Mountain Site and Agency Land 
Management: 

[Refer to PDF for image: location map] 

Depicted on the map: 

BLM portion of the site; 
DOE portion of the site; 
Air Force portion of the site; 
Nevada National Security Site; 
Nevada Test and Training Range. 

Sources: GAO analysis of GAO, BLM, and DOE data. 

[End of figure] 

Because the site partially includes some of the lands of DOE's Nevada 
National Security Site and DOD's Nevada Test and Training Range, the 
experts we spoke with told us it has the potential to be made highly 
secure, which could be relevant to some proposed future alternative 
uses of the site.[Footnote 9] Security is in place at both of these 
sites, but there is no active security perimeter around the Yucca 
Mountain site. However, the tunnel entrances are currently accessible 
by a few paved roads through the Nevada National Security Site via the 
main gate in Mercury, Nevada, which does have stringent security 
requirements.[Footnote 10] Before the Yucca Mountain repository 
program was terminated, another gate provided more direct access to 
the Yucca Mountain site and is about 12 miles closer, but it is 
currently closed. DOE officials told us there are some other paved 
roads on the Yucca Mountain site but these roads are no longer 
maintained and may have deteriorated. Use of the airspace over the DOE-
and DOD-controlled portions of the site is restricted, according to a 
DOE document, although the airspace over the BLM-controlled portion is 
not. 

Site Features Include Two Tunnels, Several Buildings, and Access to 
Some Utilities: 

The primary feature on the Yucca Mountain site consists of two large 
tunnels that DOE bored into and underneath Yucca Mountain (see figure 
3).[Footnote 11] The main tunnel is U-shaped with two entrances--the 
north portal and the south portal--and is about 5 miles long and 25 
feet in diameter. Another 2-mile tunnel branches off of the main 
tunnel. Each of these tunnels includes minor spurs and alcoves used to 
house equipment and conduct experiments. A DOE report indicates that 
the rock surrounding the tunnel has high structural integrity enabling 
the tunnel to be self-supported by the existing rock structure, 
whereas most tunnels require additional support. There are railroad 
tracks inside the tunnel designed to move equipment and personnel 
along the length of the tunnel, but these tracks may need repair 
before they can be used again. DOE officials told us the tunnels are 
subject to some radon gas emissions and silica dust, which requires 
use of a ventilation system. Figure 3 is a schematic of the tunnel, 
and figure 4 shows the north portal entrance with the piping used in 
the ventilation system and the inside of the tunnel with the 
ventilation piping overhead. 

Figure 3: Schematic of Yucca Mountain Tunnels: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Surface: 
At about 1,000 feet (300 meters): tunnels; 
Another 1,000 feet (300 meters) to water table. 

North portal: Main tunnel; Branch tunnel; 
South portal: Main tunnel; 

Tunnel location: 

North portal, South portal: On Nevada National Security Site; 

Tunnels (subsurface facilities) begin under Nevada National Security 
Site, continue into BLM and Nevada Test and Training Range. 

Sources: GAO analysis of GAO and DOE data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4: Photos of the Yucca Mountain North Portal Tunnel Entrance 
and the Interior of the Main Tunnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Source: GAO; DOE. 

[End of figure] 

Some buildings used during investigations of the site as a nuclear 
waste repository still remain. The north portal area was a key center 
of activity during these investigations and retains several 
structures. In particular, there is one large permanent building that 
housed administrative offices, changing facilities for the workers, 
and other services. In addition, there are several temporary buildings 
used for offices and warehouses that, according to DOE officials, may 
have exceeded their expected lifespans. There are also several 
temporary storage containers that contain equipment and spare parts. 
In addition to the facilities at the north portal area, there are two 
permanent buildings located several miles from the tunnels that 
contain, among other things, drilling samples and other equipment. As 
we recently reported, when the repository program was terminated, DOE 
transferred most of its office equipment, computers, and some other 
equipment to other locations[Footnote 12]. DOE officials said that 
most of the above-ground facilities and infrastructure at the Yucca 
Mountain site were constructed more than 20 years ago and were 
intended to be temporary and have not been maintained. In addition, 
according to a DOE official, some of the buildings on the site do not 
currently meet Occupational Safety and Health Administration or other 
codes and may require modifications to comply. Appendix IV provides a 
list of buildings and infrastructure on the site. 

There are limited utilities available at the Yucca Mountain site, 
including electrical, water, and telecommunications infrastructure. 
However, according to DOE officials, much of this infrastructure is 30 
or more years old, is not currently operational, and would require 
investment to be placed back into service. Parts of the site are 
connected to the Nevada National Security Site's electricity grid. 
Since DOE terminated the Yucca Mountain project and the proposed 
elimination of funding, power has been cut off to the site; however, 
according to DOE officials, power could be restored to some areas 
while service to other areas has been completely shut down. DOE 
officials told us that any future use of the site would probably 
require the existing power infrastructure to be replaced. The north 
portal area and other parts of the site have limited water service, 
provided by wells that draw groundwater--generally enough for 
operation of the restrooms, kitchen, and limited domestic services. 
However, the wells serving this system have failed in recent years and 
water service has been shut down. Moreover, according to a Nevada 
official, the current permit for use of water applies only to the work 
done to evaluate the site for a repository and any alternative uses of 
the Yucca Mountain site may require new water permits from the state 
of Nevada. In addition, two large tanks that can store potable water 
are on the site and are kept full during fire season. DOE officials 
told us they do not plan to drain the tanks this year but noted that 
since they are not winterized, the pipes could freeze and damage this 
infrastructure. A basic telecommunications infrastructure is in place 
on the site to provide for voice and data services and was replaced in 
2006. However, the system is currently inactive, and the solar power 
system that operates the system's telecommunications towers has been 
disconnected. There is fiber-optic cable in some areas of the site as 
well, but the contract for service and maintenance has been canceled. 

Geophysical Characteristics Include Limited Surface and Groundwater, 
Structurally Stable Rock and Little Seismic Activity: 

As a result of three decades of study, much is known about the site's 
geophysical characteristics, particularly its hydrologic, geologic, 
and seismic characteristics. The site's hydrology is related to its 
location in a semiarid environment, with little surface or 
groundwater. Annual rainfall is less than 6 to 8 inches. There are a 
few seasonal streams and other surface water bodies at or near Yucca 
Mountain, but these are rarely flowing. There is groundwater beneath 
the site, residing several thousand feet below the surface in most 
locations. 

Geologically, the top layer of the site is made up of welded volcanic 
tuff--thermally bonded volcanic rock from ancient eruptions about 12 
to 14 million years ago--at least 6,000 feet thick. This rock is 
believed to have low permeability to water but contains fractures 
where water could migrate through it. According to DOE's license 
application to use the site as a nuclear repository, based on the 
agency's studies, the site has few, if any, valuable minerals. 
However, according to older studies and Nevada state government 
officials, the potential for valuable mineral resources may exist. 

According to DOE's license application, Yucca Mountain lies in an area 
of low seismicity and earthquake potential. The site shows evidence of 
some earthquake events during its geologic history, but according to 
DOE documents, past earthquakes have occurred infrequently with tens 
of thousands of years between events, although small earthquakes have 
occurred since measurement began in recent decades. However, some 
uncertainty exists about the sources of seismic signals recorded near 
the Yucca Mountain site over the decades of study because activities 
at adjacent sites--including underground nuclear explosions at the 
Nevada National Security Site prior to the 1992 decision to stop 
underground testing of nuclear weapons, airborne bombing at the Nevada 
Test and Training Range, and surface drilling and detonations using 
seismic charges to support geophysical investigations at Yucca 
Mountain and nearby--may produce earthquake-like signals. 

Stakeholders Proposed Various Alternative Uses but Experts Cited 
Significant Challenges to Some Uses and Noted that Many Could Be 
Undertaken Elsewhere: 

Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca 
Mountain site. We found no broad consensus among the experts we 
consulted about the benefits and challenges of these uses, many of 
whom told us that many of these uses would be costly and may require 
federal assistance, and that some may face significant challenges. 
Several experts noted that many proposed alternative uses could be 
undertaken elsewhere. 

Stakeholders Proposed Alternative Uses that Fell into Five Categories, 
and We Found No Consensus among Experts about Their Benefits and 
Challenges: 

Stakeholders we contacted proposed 30 alternative uses of the Yucca 
Mountain site spanning five broad categories, which include: (1) 
nuclear or radiological uses, (2) defense or homeland security 
activities, (3) information technology, (4) energy development or 
storage, and (5) scientific research. The proposed alternative uses 
were at varying levels of development and specificity, with some 
having had more consideration and others in the conceptual phase. A 
full list of the proposed alternative uses and a description of each 
can be found in appendix II. We contacted experts in each of the five 
categories to provide comments on the uses in their areas of 
expertise. Overall, no broad consensus emerged among these experts 
about the benefits and challenges of these proposed alternative uses. 
Some experts identified some as good or great uses of the Yucca 
Mountain site, while other experts identified those same uses as poor 
or very poor uses of the site for varying reasons, as discussed in the 
following paragraphs. 

Nuclear or radiological uses. Stakeholders proposed 10 nuclear or 
radiological uses of the Yucca Mountain site, including the production 
of medical isotopes,[Footnote 13] reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, 
[Footnote 14] temporary or interim nuclear or radioactive waste 
storage, and several uses related to nuclear power generation. Several 
nuclear experts we contacted identified interim storage of nuclear 
waste as a good or great potential use of the site, since it is 
similar to the original proposed use and could therefore build on past 
efforts and studies. On the other hand, one nuclear expert identified 
use of the site for interim storage as very poor, noting that it is 
impractical to transport high-level nuclear waste more than once. 
[Footnote 15] Similarly, two stakeholders proposed producing medical 
isotopes on the site, and nuclear experts differed on the benefits and 
challenges of this use. As some experts acknowledged a need to 
increase production of medical isotopes in the United States, they, 
however, noted multiple challenges related to isotope production at 
the Yucca Mountain site. For example, one expert questioned the 
viability of the technologies stakeholders proposed to produce medical 
isotopes--the use of electron accelerators or neutron generators. 
Stakeholders also proposed two additional alternative uses related to 
nuclear research--a nuclear technologies research facility and a 
research reactor--that also received mixed responses from experts we 
consulted. Some experts noted that such research is already conducted 
at other locations, such as DOE's Idaho National Laboratory, and that 
another research location is not necessary; further, some experts said 
that they did not believe that there would be an adequate workforce in 
Nevada to support such a facility. Moreover, one expert noted that a 
research reactor would "only realize moderate benefit from historical 
investments and infrastructure at Yucca Mountain." 

Defense or homeland security activities. Stakeholders proposed six 
alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site related to defense or 
homeland security, including testing and training of the Active Denial 
System, a nonlethal weapon;[Footnote 16] a training site for first 
responders; and a command center for unmanned aerial vehicles. Some 
defense experts we contacted identified some defense uses of the Yucca 
Mountain Site as good or great uses. In particular, these experts 
noted that the site may be well-suited for homeland security 
activities, including using the site to test instruments to detect 
radioactive and nuclear material. According to these experts, the 
Yucca Mountain site would offer security, and the tunnels could 
provide shielding for radioactive and nuclear materials as well as the 
ability to test and train in both open and confined environments. One 
expert stated that the Yucca Mountain tunnel could be used to simulate 
a wide range of threats, including chemical, biological, radiological, 
nuclear, and explosive. For example, according to this expert, the 
shielding provided by Yucca Mountain would prevent any radiation 
"signature" from being detected above ground, which--coupled with the 
potential of strong physical security of the site--would allow the 
federal government to test classified systems and materials. Moreover, 
any accidental release of hazardous or radioactive material used in 
testing could be easily contained on site, according to one expert. 
Some experts also told us that the site may offer benefits for first 
responder training activities. For example, one expert noted that the 
main tunnel could simulate a subway tunnel for training first 
responders in underground environments. Moreover, the shielding and 
containment of the tunnel could allow nuclear or other hazardous 
materials to be used in training exercises, according to one expert. 
On the other hand, some experts identified challenges associated with 
proposed defense uses. For example, one expert noted that the enclosed 
space of the Yucca Mountain tunnel may limit testing and training 
activities. In particular, the tunnel would not effectively simulate 
open or urban environments, where most actual responses would take 
place, according to this expert. Currently, unmanned aerial vehicles 
are operated at other sites not originally built for this purpose-- 
including Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada, about 40 
miles from the Yucca Mountain site--and which some have noted could be 
vulnerable to an attack. One stakeholder suggested that such 
operations could be moved or centralized to Yucca Mountain, which 
would provide a more secure site. One expert stated that having a 
highly secure command and control facility for unmanned aerial 
vehicles will be essential in the future and identified this as a 
great use of the site. On the other hand, another expert cited the 
limited infrastructure at the site as a shortcoming to this use and 
noted that it was not a very good fit for the unique characteristics 
of Yucca Mountain. 

Information technology. Stakeholders we contacted proposed three 
alternative uses related to information technology, including using 
the site for public emergency communications, secure electronic data, 
or paper document storage. For example, one stakeholder proposed 
locating a secure electronic data center at the Yucca Mountain site to 
house classified federal data. According to some experts, some of the 
benefits that the site may offer include potentially strong physical 
security and proximity to a major internet hub that runs through Las 
Vegas, Nevada, which could provide a great deal of flexibility in 
managing and transmitting data. In addition, one expert noted that 
locating a secure data center on-site could lead to some cost savings 
if classified datasets that are currently managed in separate 
locations could be consolidated. However, some experts told us that 
using the site for a data center would require significant upgrades to 
the data and communications infrastructure at the site to connect it 
to existing infrastructure in Las Vegas. In particular, one expert 
noted that securing communications infrastructure--including measures 
to physically secure the communications links, along with efforts to 
ensure adequate cybersecurity--can be expensive. Moreover, one expert 
cited physical challenges to housing information technology in the 
Yucca Mountain tunnels. For example, environmental controls would 
likely need to be added to manage the environment within the tunnel. 
DOE and state officials told us that humidity levels may be high in 
the tunnels without an operating ventilation system due to 
condensation of water from the air. As a result, U.S. Geological 
Survey officials said that ventilation fans may be required to operate 
in the tunnels in order to house computer servers or other electronic 
equipment. In addition, the stakeholder proposing use of the tunnels 
for data storage told us that heat emitted by servers may require 
substantial cooling. 

Energy development. Stakeholders we contacted proposed seven 
alternative uses of Yucca Mountain related to energy development or 
storage. Three of the proposed uses concerned production of renewable 
energy, while three other proposed uses support renewable energy 
development, and one stakeholder proposed using the site as a 
strategic petroleum reserve for the western states.[Footnote 17] One 
expert noted that research into geothermal energy development is 
needed and cited advantages for this use at Yucca Mountain, but 
another expert stated that this was a poor use of the site and that 
the site did not provide any unique advantages for this use. Other 
experts identified benefits to using the site for solar energy 
development, since the area is rich in sunlight, but one cited the 
ruggedness of the terrain as a challenge. Stakeholders also proposed 
using the site for research into renewable energy sources, including 
solar, wind, and geothermal energy, and carbon capture. Two experts 
identified this as a good or great use of the site, noting that more 
research into renewable energy technologies is needed, but some 
experts identified challenges related to this use, including 
challenges related to building transmission lines. Three other uses--
compressed air storage, hydroelectric energy storage, and a renewable 
energy storage laboratory--would use the main tunnel to store 
renewable energy for later use. For these uses, stakeholders proposed 
sealing the main tunnel and using it to store energy--either as 
compressed air or pumped water. Such systems work by storing energy 
produced when production is high (e.g., during the day when solar 
energy is produced) by compressing air or pumping water upstream and 
releasing the air or water to produce energy when demand is high. A 
few experts noted that more research into compressed air storage in 
tunnels is needed and cited a demonstration project as a great use of 
the Yucca Mountain site. One expert stated that the Yucca Mountain 
site was "critical" to use as a renewable energy storage laboratory, 
noting that the tunnel and related infrastructure were unique assets 
that could provide a commercial-scale demonstration project. On the 
other hand, some experts identified the proposed uses related to 
renewable energy storage as poor or very poor uses, noting that there 
are a number of challenges to these uses at the site, such as the 
permeability of the site's geology.[Footnote 18] One stakeholder 
proposed using the site as a strategic petroleum reserve for the 
western part of the country, but several experts identified this as a 
poor use of the site for a number of reasons. For example, one expert 
noted that there already is adequate strategic petroleum reserve 
capacity elsewhere in the United States. 

Scientific research. Stakeholders we contacted proposed four 
alternative uses related to scientific research, including using the 
site for a geological laboratory and storage site for geological 
samples, as a center for research into highly-infectious diseases, for 
mining research, or for other scientific and university research. 
According to one scientific expert, the site could be used to store 
geological samples at a cost that would be relatively low compared to 
other uses for the site, but another expert noted that this use was 
not of much value at the site, since it would not take advantage of 
the large investment into site characterization made in the past. 
Regarding the proposal for a center for disease research, one expert 
stated that this research would be of "vital interest to scientists as 
well as those concerned with national security," and other experts 
identified some of the site's characteristics, such as its remoteness, 
as benefits to this use. However, one expert stated that a subsurface 
facility would not be ideal for this use, given the need for 
ventilation and access. One expert identified mining education as a 
good use of the site, noting that the physical infrastructure, history 
of the construction, and continued exploration of Yucca Mountain 
present an "unmatched opportunity" for students of mining or geology 
in general. Other experts also saw benefits to using the site for this 
use, but one stated that, overall, this was not an optimal use given 
the substantial past investment in the site. One stakeholder proposed 
using the site for scientific research to explore a variety of 
research areas, including the atomic structure of matter.[Footnote 19] 
This stakeholder noted that research at such a facility may address a 
wide variety of current challenges, including improving the conversion 
of solar energy, efficiency and durability of battery storage, and 
pollution control from energy production. According to one expert, 
using the site as a research center may be a good use, but other 
experts identified this as a poor or very poor use and cited multiple 
challenges, such as accessibility to the site, given its remoteness. 

Many Proposed Alternative Uses May Be Costly or Face Significant 
Challenges: 

Many of the proposed alternative uses of Yucca Mountain may be costly--
requiring federal funding to make them economically viable--or face 
major challenges, according to many of the 16 experts we contacted. In 
particular, many of the proposed nuclear uses would be costly to 
implement, according to some nuclear experts, and would only be 
feasible with financial support from the federal government. For 
example, the stakeholder who proposed using the site for the 
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, as well as several nuclear 
experts, acknowledged that reprocessing using current technologies is 
very expensive and not economically viable at this time. One expert 
noted that an industry estimate of the cost to build a nuclear 
reprocessing facility in the United States is $25 billion. Similarly, 
two experts stated that it would be costly to build nuclear reactors 
for power generation at the Yucca Mountain site, with one noting that 
doing so would require federal funding. It would also be expensive to 
use the site for production of medical isotopes, according to two 
experts, both in terms of capital and operating costs, and one expert 
said that this use would also require federal funds. Moreover, several 
experts said that many of the nuclear uses may face other significant 
challenges, including local public resistance. For example, one expert 
noted that opposition to using Yucca Mountain for any nuclear or 
radioactive waste disposal, including interim waste storage, would be 
a challenge, especially if there was no long-term plan for addressing 
the waste. In addition, one expert noted that some individuals fear 
that allowing interim storage of nuclear waste at the site would 
preserve the option to allow it to be used for permanent storage of 
such waste. Moreover, some experts noted that several of the proposed 
alternative nuclear uses, including nuclear power generation and 
reprocessing, require significant amounts of water, which may be a 
significant challenge at the site, given the scarcity of water in 
Nevada.[Footnote 20] 

Some defense experts we contacted also said that some of the proposed 
defense or homeland security uses would be costly to implement or face 
other significant challenges. For example, some experts cited the high 
cost of using Yucca Mountain as a command and control center for the 
military, which would require significant upgrades to data 
communications, water infrastructure, and infrastructure within the 
tunnel. In particular, one expert noted that the requirement to 
develop survivable communications infrastructure for command and 
control would be significant. Two experts also noted that it would be 
costly to use the Yucca Mountain site as a command center for unmanned 
aerial vehicles. According to one expert, there are already sites in 
place that serve these purposes, and it would be costly to move them. 

Several of the proposed uses in the energy category may also be 
expensive to implement or face major challenges, according to some 
energy experts. For example, using the site for compressed air storage 
may not be cost-effective on its own and would require significant 
investment of outside funds, according to one expert. This expert also 
noted that it was unlikely that the application would result in large- 
scale commercial deployment. Two other experts identified sealing and 
reconfiguring the tunnel for this use as also being costly. Similarly, 
some experts identified high costs related to using the tunnel for 
hydrological energy storage or as a renewable energy storage 
laboratory. One expert said that outside funding would also be 
required for solar energy development at the site, since there is not 
currently a well-developed market for solar electricity, and a few 
other experts identified high costs associated with this use, 
including the cost to build transmission lines to the site and other 
infrastructure. Using the site as a strategic petroleum reserve may 
also face significant challenges, according to some experts. One 
expert stated that the amount of petroleum that could be stored in the 
Yucca Mountain tunnels is insignificant when considering the nation's 
current rate of consumption and storage capacity elsewhere. Moreover, 
this expert noted that transporting the petroleum would be a 
challenge, since it would have to be transported from U.S. petroleum 
sources or coastal delivery ports. 

According to some of the experts we contacted, some of the proposed 
scientific uses may also be costly or face other significant 
challenges. For example, using the site for a research center on the 
atomic structure of matter would be very expensive to build and 
operate, according to some experts. Research in this area would 
require a large, advanced accelerator, which one expert stated would 
cost billions of dollars to build. In addition, such an accelerator 
may require a particular shape, according to one expert, which the 
Yucca Mountain tunnels may not match, thus requiring additional 
excavation. Construction started on a similar facility in Texas in the 
1980s--the Superconducting Super Collider--but the project was shut 
down due to high costs, among other concerns. Building a research 
center to study highly infectious diseases would also be costly, 
according to one expert, and may generate controversy and local 
resistance. 

Experts Noted that Many Proposed Alternative Uses Could be Undertaken 
Elsewhere: 

Several experts stated that Yucca Mountain's characteristics would not 
be critical to many of the alternative uses proposed by stakeholders, 
with some noting that other locations might offer some of the same 
benefits while posing fewer challenges. For example, nuclear experts 
we contacted identified a number of nuclear uses that could be 
undertaken elsewhere. One expert told us that interim waste disposal 
could happen "anywhere in the country"--DOE has reported that spent 
nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that had been planned to 
be disposed of at Yucca Mountain is currently stored at 121 sites in 
39 states.[Footnote 21] In addition, some experts said that they did 
not believe that the remoteness or level of security at the site was 
critical for production of medical isotopes, with two experts stating 
that medical isotopes should be produced closer to the locations in 
which they will be used--hospitals and research facilities--especially 
considering their short half-lives.[Footnote 22] Likewise, as one 
expert cited the remoteness of Yucca Mountain as an advantage in the 
reprocessing of nuclear waste, another expert stated that other 
locations would be better suited--including DOE's Idaho National 
Laboratory or Savannah River Site, which both have an existing 
infrastructure and workforce. And several experts noted that nuclear 
power plants would be better sited closer to population centers that 
could use the power. 

Similarly, the defense experts we contacted told us that 
characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site were not critical to some 
of the defense and homeland security uses stakeholders proposed. For 
example, testing of the Active Denial System could be safely done in 
any remote location, according to one expert, who noted that the 
shielding that Yucca Mountain provides would not be critical to this 
use. Moreover, another expert stated that there are likely many other 
military test ranges in the United States where testing and training 
of this weapon could take place. In addition, two experts stated that 
using the Yucca Mountain site as a command and control center or a 
command center for unmanned aerial vehicles could both be done 
elsewhere and with potentially fewer challenges. For example, it would 
cost significantly more to use the Yucca Mountain site as a command 
center for these vehicles rather than using an existing military base 
that already has infrastructure to support personnel, such as housing, 
in place. 

Some of the proposed information technology uses could also be 
undertaken elsewhere, according to some experts. For example, the 
stakeholder that proposed using Yucca Mountain for secure data storage 
told us that, while Yucca Mountain would offer some advantages to this 
use, it could be undertaken at other locations, noting in particular 
that some underground facilities on the adjacent Nevada National 
Security Site would also provide a high level of security as well as 
other benefits similar to those offered by the Yucca Mountain site. In 
addition, one expert stated that the use of the site for storage of 
highly secure electronic data would benefit from the potentially 
strong physical security of the site, but another expert stated that 
the characteristics at Yucca Mountain were not central to the proposed 
concept. In particular, the second expert noted that the site's 
isolation may pose challenges for making the needed data capacity 
upgrades and consolidating data in one location could make it more 
susceptible to cyber attacks. Similarly, one expert stated that the 
proposed public emergency communications site would be better located 
closer to Las Vegas, Nevada, where most of the first responders are 
located. Moreover, this expert noted that it may be difficult to 
broadcast emergency messages from a submerged rock tunnel. 

For the proposed energy uses, some experts stated that there are many 
other sites that would be suitable for solar and geothermal 
development. One expert noted that there are many areas in the 
Southwest that are well-suited for solar power, and another expert 
stated that Yucca Mountain's remote location would present some 
disadvantages in that it is far from a customer base that could use 
and finance the power and would require construction of adequate 
transmission lines to move the electricity to population centers. 
Similarly, one expert pointed out that there are many locations in the 
Southwest with high levels of geothermal activity, and another expert 
stated that most of Nevada's geothermal activity is in the northern 
part of the state. Some experts said that some of the Yucca Mountain 
site's characteristics would be critical for renewable energy storage, 
but others noted that other locations may be better suited. For 
example, one expert stated that compressed air energy storage may face 
challenges in any area with seismic activity, since even a small 
tremor may rupture an airtight seal. Another expert identified Yucca 
Mountain as a unique location for studying tunnel-based storage but 
noted that other sites could be used for hydrological energy storage. 
One expert stated that a strategic petroleum reserve would be better 
placed elsewhere, such as in an abandoned mine that is much bigger and 
closer to existing petroleum sources and distribution infrastructure. 

Some experts said that Yucca Mountain's location was not critical to 
some scientific uses either. According to one scientific expert, 
storing geological samples could be done elsewhere at a lower cost, 
including in surface warehouses. Similarly, while one expert 
identified the remoteness of the Yucca Mountain site as offering 
advantages to a research center to explore the atomic structure of 
matter, two experts also identified this as a challenge, with one 
noting that the remoteness of the site may prevent federal and 
academic scientists from the collaboration that is critical to 
multidisciplinary research projects. Experts cited similar concerns 
regarding use of the site as a center for research into highly-
infectious diseases, with one noting that the site's location may make 
it difficult to hire a skilled workforce. 

Pursuing Alternative Uses of the Yucca Mountain Site Could Face Legal 
and Administrative Challenges: 

Alternative uses of Yucca Mountain could face a number of legal and 
administrative challenges if they were to be pursued. These challenges 
include legal proceedings regarding the site's original planned use as 
a repository, potential litigation related to mining claims on the 
site, federal agencies' divided control over the site, and activities 
on adjacent federal lands. In addition, any proposed uses of Yucca 
Mountain would be subject to applicable federal and state regulations. 

Resolution of Legal Proceedings Could Preclude or Significantly Delay 
Alternative Uses: 

The outcome of legal proceedings concerning whether the Yucca Mountain 
site will be used as a nuclear waste repository could significantly 
delay or preclude the pursuit of alternative uses of the Yucca 
Mountain site. Specifically, two separate but related legal 
proceedings--one before the NRC and another before a federal appellate 
court--were unresolved as of September 9, 2011, when this report was 
being prepared for publication. Specifically, 

* After DOE submitted a motion in March 2010 to an NRC Atomic Safety 
and Licensing Board to withdraw its application to license Yucca 
Mountain as the nation's first repository for spent fuel and high-
level nuclear waste, the licensing board denied DOE's motion to 
withdraw its licensing application in June 2010, and stated that the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, mandates progress toward 
a decision on the construction permit. However, NRC issued an order 
inviting parties to file briefs addressing whether the NRC 
commissioners should review the board's decision and, if so, whether 
the commissioners should uphold or reverse it. On September 9, 2011, 
the commissioners considered whether or not to overturn or uphold the 
board's decision. However, they were evenly divided and unable to take 
a final action on the matter. Instead, the commissioners directed the 
licensing board, consistent with budgetary limitations, to complete 
all necessary and appropriate case management activities, including 
disposing of the matters before the board, by September 30, 2011. 
Continued NRC proceedings or challenges in federal court could delay 
or preclude alternative uses. 

* In response to DOE's attempt to withdraw its license application, 
several states and private parties sued DOE and NRC in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[Footnote 23] These 
petitioners contended that DOE had no authority to terminate the 
proposed Yucca Mountain repository. On July 1, 2011, the court 
dismissed the case, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over 
the petitioners' claims because the Yucca Mountain licensing 
proceeding remained pending before the NRC. In addition, the court 
stated that if the NRC fails to rule on the license application within 
the period provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended,[Footnote 24] the petitioners would have a new cause of 
action. On July 29, 2011, the same petitioners, joined by Nye County, 
Nevada, filed a petition against NRC asking the court to, among other 
things, compel NRC to provide a proposed schedule with milestones and 
a date certain for approving or disapproving the license application. 
If the court finds for the petitioners, the license application review 
process may resume and alternative uses could be delayed or precluded. 

A ruling by the NRC or the court may reopen the possibility of Yucca 
Mountain again being considered for a permanent nuclear waste 
repository, although fully reinstating these efforts could require 
Congress to take several steps, including appropriating funds. In the 
event that the site is developed into a repository, it would preclude 
use of the site for alternative uses. Even without a ruling, potential 
alternative uses will almost certainly be delayed until the legal 
issues surrounding the original use of Yucca Mountain have been 
resolved. 

Potential Litigation Related to Mining Claims Could Affect Alternative 
Uses of the Site: 

DOE's access to the BLM portion of the Yucca Mountain site has 
changed. During DOE's study of the Yucca Mountain site, Interior 
provided DOE the right to use lands managed by BLM. Specifically, BLM 
granted a right-of-way in 1988 to allow DOE to have access to the 
entire BLM portion of the Yucca Mountain site (see figure 5), which 
comprises a total of about 81 square miles.[Footnote 25] According to 
DOE and Interior officials, the right-of-way allowed for other uses of 
the site lands, including mining, as long as they did not interfere 
with DOE's study of the Yucca Mountain site for a potential 
repository.[Footnote 26] Within the lands covered by the right-of-way, 
Interior issued a public land order in 1990 that established 
additional restrictions on the BLM portion of the land nearest to and 
directly above the tunnel.[Footnote 27] This public land order 
withdrew 6.6 square miles of the BLM portion of the site's land within 
the 81 square miles covered by the right-of-way from location under 
the mining laws and from leasing under the mineral leasing laws. The 
order effectively prevented new mining claims in the area above the 
tunnel as well as the area expected to be where waste would be stored 
underground, according to DOE documents, as well as the lands in the 
immediate vicinity (see figure 5).[Footnote 28] In 2008, DOE asked the 
Secretary of the Interior to extend the land withdrawal order beyond 
its scheduled expiration date in January 2010, but the Secretary did 
not grant the extension. However, the right-of-way covering the BLM 
portion of the site still applies to these lands until its scheduled 
expiration date in 2014. 

Figure 5: Map Showing Federal Management Status of the Yucca Mountain 
Site: 

[Refer to PDF for image: site map] 

Depicted on the map: 

Main tunnel; 
Branching tunnel; 
BLM portion of the site: 
BLM lands withdrawn by order of the Secretary of the Interior; 
DOE portion of the site; 
Air Force portion of the site. 

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE and BLM data. 

[End of figure] 

After the scheduled expiration of the public land order, private 
parties filed 35 mining claims on the 6.6 square-mile area covered by 
the land withdrawal, which the BLM Nevada State Office recorded and 
processed.[Footnote 29] As of July 2011, BLM had initially determined 
that almost all of these 35 mining claims were "active," or in good 
standing; that is, the claims were on lands open to mineral entry and 
were properly filed.[Footnote 30] Based on our analysis, 8 of these 35 
mining claims directly overlay a section of the existing main Yucca 
Mountain tunnel and others appeared to be located above the planned 
nuclear waste storage areas (see figure 6). In August 2011, however, 
Interior officials told us that as a result of our inquiry and 
subsequent discussions with agency officials, BLM, in consultation 
with Interior's Office of the Solicitor, which performs the legal work 
of Interior's bureaus and offices, determined that the 35 mining 
claims were filed on lands not open for mineral location. In making 
this determination, BLM and Interior officials told us that, although 
the public land order withdrawing the lands from location under the 
mining laws and leasing under mineral leasing laws had expired, the 
Secretary of the Interior had not issued an "opening order" to 
formally reopen the land, and the lands would therefore remain closed 
until such an order had been issued. As a result, BLM officials told 
us that they declared the claims to be "void ab initio," that is void 
from the start, in August 2011.[Footnote 31] BLM plans to refund about 
$8,000 to the private parties who held the 35 claims. If they disagree 
with BLM's declaration, the parties have 30 days to appeal the 
decision to Interior. Separately, private entities had filed 83 
additional mining claims on the land covered by the right-of-way 
outside the lands subject to the public land order. According to BLM 
officials, these 83 claims are active, but the owners of these claims 
would have to work with BLM and DOE to begin significant mining 
activities. Most of these claims are located near the southern and 
western boundaries of the site. 

Figure 6: Map Showing Locations of Mining Claims in Relation to Yucca 
Mountain Tunnel: 

[Refer to PDF for image: site map] 

Depicted on the map: 

Main tunnel; 
Branching tunnel; 
BLM portion of the site: 
BLM lands withdrawn by order of the Secretary of the Interior; 
Mining claims within withdrawn area; 
DOE portion of the site; 
Air Force portion of the site. 

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE and BLM data. 

[End of figure] 

Even though BLM has declared the 35 mining claims void ab initio, 
Interior officials acknowledged that the claims' status could 
ultimately be the subject of litigation, which may present challenges 
or cause delays to future uses of the site. For example, if mining 
claims that include the tunnel are recognized as active and in good 
standing following litigation, future potential alternative users 
might have to negotiate with the holder of the mining claim in order 
to make use of portions of the tunnel included in the claims, or seek 
to buy out the mining claim. Similarly, if mining operations were 
allowed, some officials noted that activities on the claims, such as 
blasting, could pose risks to the integrity of the tunnel.[Footnote 32] 

Federal Agencies' Divided Control of the Yucca Mountain Site May 
Present Challenges to Alternative Uses: 

Because the Yucca Mountain site and the tunnels are within lands 
managed by three separate federal agencies, potential alternative uses 
of the site may face challenges related to the management of the 
site's lands. Currently, DOE has use of all three portions of the 
Yucca Mountain site through its right-of-way agreement with BLM and an 
additional right-of-way agreement with BLM and the U.S. Air Force to 
access lands controlled by the Air Force. These right-of-way 
agreements were provided to DOE for site investigation activities and 
are scheduled to expire in 2014. After 2014, full control of the lands 
and tunnel will revert to the Air Force, BLM, and DOE.[Footnote 33] As 
noted, the tunnels' portals open onto DOE's Nevada National Security 
Site, but the tunnels also underlie BLM and Air Force land. 

Any potential future user of the site would have to coordinate with 
all three agencies, absent a change in the management or ownership of 
the land. Agency officials and stakeholders discussed three possible 
scenarios under which the Yucca Mountain site's land could be managed 
if an alternative use were pursued as well as some potential outcomes 
of these scenarios, as follows: 

* Site remains federally managed. DOE, BLM, and the U.S. Air Force 
could continue to manage the site's lands under the control of each 
agency. As a result, a potential user might have to hold negotiations 
and come to agreements with each agency separately, as was done by the 
managers of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository project. In this case, the 
user would likely be subject to current DOE rules, such as 
restrictions placed on foreign nationals' access to the Nevada 
National Security Site and the payment of service fees that DOE 
charges for use of the DOE portion of the site.[Footnote 34] 
Similarly, each of the other agencies may have unique concerns that 
may need to be addressed individually. 

* Sale of site lands to a private landowner. Any private acquisition 
of land would have to address acquisition of lands currently held by 
DOE, BLM, and possibly the U.S. Air Force; this may require 
significant legal steps. For example, Air Force lands have been 
legislatively withdrawn to serve its mission, so congressional action 
may be required before Air Force lands could be sold. In addition, to 
give users access to the site, DOE would at least have to grant rights-
of-way through the Nevada National Security Site, or congressional 
action may have to be taken. In addition, if there are any existing 
mining claims, the potential user that acquired the lands could take 
title of the land subject to the existing mining claims or could buy 
out the claims. 

* Congressional land withdrawal for a specific use. If it chooses to 
do so, Congress has the power to set aside land for specific federal 
agencies through legislative action, including by withdrawal of lands, 
such as the Yucca Mountain site lands, for specific purposes from the 
public land laws. In addition, Congress could specify conditions or 
restrictions associated with the land withdrawal, such as to what 
extent other land management laws or regulations apply. 

Activities on Adjacent Federal Lands May Limit Some Alternative Uses: 

Potential future uses of the site may be limited by the highly 
sensitive national security activities that take place on adjacent 
federal lands. At the Nevada National Security Site, DOE activities 
include subcritical testing of nuclear bomb components to support 
DOE's stockpile stewardship mission, nuclear device assembly and 
storage, and other activities. At the U.S. Air Force's Nevada Test and 
Training Range, activities include training pilots, dropping live 
bombs, and testing of radar and other military equipment, among other 
things. Air Force officials we spoke with told us that an important 
part of what makes the Nevada Test and Training Range an asset to the 
Air Force is that it provides a unique opportunity for pilots and 
others to test equipment and train personnel in a large area of 
"pristine" airspace without any electromagnetic interference. Some 
potential uses may create electromagnetic or other interference. For 
example, wind turbines would be of concern because the spinning blades 
of wind turbines, even if they are miles away, can create reflective 
radar effects that could seriously impede the testing of new sensing 
equipment. In addition, Air Force officials told us that they may have 
concerns about other uses as well--such as proposed uses that would 
increase civilian or aviation activity on the border of the Nevada 
Test and Training Range--but that each use would have to be evaluated 
on a case-by-case basis.[Footnote 35] Similarly, the Nevada National 
Security Site conducts some activities that are highly sensitive and 
that DOE requires to be secure from outside observation. As such, DOE 
officials noted that some uses, particularly those that could provide 
observation of key portions of the Nevada National Security Site, 
would not be consistent with the site's mission. 

In addition to these restrictions, the U.S. Air Force and the Federal 
Aviation Administration regulate the use of airspace over most of the 
site. In particular, the DOE and Air Force portions are restricted 
from all civilian air traffic. However, the airspace above the BLM 
portion of the site is unrestricted, according to DOE documents. 

Any Proposed Use of the Site Will Require Addressing a Range of 
Regulatory Requirements: 

Any proposed alternative use of the site will require the use to 
comply with applicable federal and state regulations, as with any 
activity. For example, alternative uses that result in air emissions, 
such as emissions from any gas-powered generators or dust if there is 
construction on the site, would require operators to obtain air 
permits from Nevada. Similarly, construction of some buildings may 
require permits and steps to address Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration and other building-specific requirements. In addition, 
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended requires 
that proposed major federal actions that significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment must be accompanied by a detailed 
statement which includes the environmental impacts of the proposed 
action, adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided, and 
alternatives to the proposed action. The specific regulatory 
requirements needed for a specific alternative use would depend on the 
nature of the use. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided Interior, DOE, the U.S. Air Force, and NRC with a draft of 
this report for their review and comment. Interior did not provide 
written comments on our draft report. However, in e-mails, the 
Interior liaison stated that Interior concurred with the findings in 
the report. Interior also provided written technical comments, which 
we incorporated as appropriate. We received written comments on the 
draft report from DOE, which are reproduced in appendix V. DOE neither 
agreed with nor disagreed with our findings and also provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The U.S. Air 
Force did not provide written comments but provided technical 
comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. We received 
written comments on the draft report from NRC, which are reproduced in 
appendix VI. NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with the findings in the 
report and also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, 
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Chairman of 
NRC, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
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 report. Key contributors to this report 
are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Frank Rusco: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

For this report, we examined (1) the characteristics of the Yucca 
Mountain site; (2) alternative uses stakeholders have proposed that 
may utilize these characteristics, and experts' evaluations of those 
uses; and (3) challenges, if any, in pursuing alternative uses. 

For the purposes of this report, we have defined the Yucca Mountain 
site to include the lands that were withdrawn or reserved from lands 
historically managed by the Department of Energy (DOE), Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), and the U.S. Air Force when the site was being 
investigated for use as a nuclear waste repository, as well as lands 
authorized by the BLM for such use. To examine the characteristics of 
the Yucca Mountain site, we inspected several portions of the site to 
assess its conditions and conduct a limited assessment of existing 
assets. During our site inspection, we visited both tunnel portals as 
well as the site's permanent and temporary structures. Our assessment 
of the site did not include an inspection of the tunnels because of 
the costs to reopen them and make them safe for inspection. As a 
result of the proposed elimination of federal funding for the Yucca 
Mountain Project, DOE discontinued most activities at the site in 2010 
and took steps to close the site,[Footnote 36] including closing 
access to the tunnels and turning off utilities, including the power 
for the ventilation system. DOE determined that reopening the tunnels, 
because of the steps that had been taken to close the site, would cost 
$20,000-$50,000 for one day. In addition to our site inspection, we 
reviewed documents, including DOE's license application, environmental 
impact statements, public land orders, and relevant laws and 
regulations. We also interviewed officials with knowledge of the site, 
including officials from DOE, the Department of Defense, and the 
Department of the Interior's BLM and U.S. Geological Survey, as well 
as other experts with knowledge of the site. Finally, we worked with 
agency officials familiar with Geographical Information Systems to 
create maps of the site encompassing various data layers. 

To examine proposed alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site, we 
contacted federal, state, and local government agencies; national 
laboratories; private firms; nonprofit agencies; and others to 
identify stakeholders with ideas for alternative uses of the Yucca 
Mountain site. We also asked each stakeholder we identified, in 
addition to gathering information on the proposed alternative uses, 
whether he or she knew of any other such proposals. Using this 
snowball methodology, we attempted to uncover all reasonably plausible 
ideas for uses that have been put forward, from those in the early 
stages of formation and discussion to more fully developed proposals. 
However, in part because the site has long been expected to be the 
future site of a permanent nuclear waste repository and has not been 
the subject of widespread consideration for other purposes, it is 
important to note that the alternative uses discussed in this report 
may not reflect all of the potential alternative uses for the site. We 
asked stakeholders to describe their proposed alternative uses using a 
structured data collection instrument. We then consolidated proposed 
uses in order to avoid duplication; for example, we received two 
proposals related to first responder training activities, which we 
consolidated into one. We then sorted the proposed uses into five 
broad categories: (1) nuclear uses, (2) defense or homeland security 
activities, (3) information technology, (4) energy development or 
storage, and (5) scientific research. The complete list of proposed 
alternative uses for the Yucca Mountain site that are considered in 
this report is given in appendix II. 

In order to identify experts to comment on the stakeholders' proposed 
uses in each of the five broad categories, we approached experts 
within nationally recognized organizations, including the National 
Academy of Sciences, the RAND Corporation, and the Brookings 
Institution, as well as other experts we knew of from our work in 
these areas, for their recommendations on names of experts we should 
include in this effort. We did not attempt to snowball a complete list 
of experts in each of these categories, but rather to ensure we had at 
least a few well-respected experts within each category of expertise, 
who could provide informed comments on the proposed alternative uses. 
We also took steps to ensure that all of these experts could provide 
independent and objective opinions on the proposed uses, including 
ensuring that none of them had any financial or nonfinancial interests 
in any of the potential uses, and that they did not represent, 
advocate for, or benefit from any of the stakeholders' proposed 
alternative uses of the site. From the list of experts generated, we 
then selected a nonprobability sample of 16 experts to comment on the 
stakeholders' proposed uses in each of the five broad categories. 
Specifically, there were five expert perspectives in the nuclear 
category, three in the defense category, three in the information 
technology category, five in the energy category, and three in the 
research category. (Since some of the experts could provide expertise 
in more than one category, these sum up to more than 16.) We created 
and used a structured data collection instrument to elicit comments 
from the experts on each proposed alternative use. Specifically, we 
asked experts to provide information on whether the proposed 
alternative uses would utilize the site's characteristics; the 
benefits of, challenges to, and costs of the uses; the criticality of 
Yucca Mountain's characteristics to the uses; and the experts' overall 
opinions on the uses. We compiled and analyzed the provided 
information. Appendix III lists the experts we consulted. The scope of 
our work did not include asking experts to evaluate the benefits of 
not using the site for any use; moreover, no one we contacted for 
proposals documented a proposal that the site not be used. 

To identify the statutory, regulatory, and other challenges that would 
have to be addressed to pursue alternative uses, we reviewed relevant 
laws, regulations, and guidance. We interviewed agency officials from 
DOE, including officials from the Nevada Site Office, the former 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the Office of 
General Counsel. We also interviewed federal officials from the U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office, and the General 
Services Administration; state officials from Nevada, including 
officials from the Nevada Attorney General's office, the State of 
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection, Nevada Department of Wildlife, and the Nevada State 
Engineer; and local officials from Nye and Clark Counties. We also 
consulted officials from federal agencies operating at the adjacent 
Nevada National Security Site, Nevada Test and Training Range, and BLM 
land to evaluate the extent to which any of the potential uses could 
conflict with current or anticipated missions at the sites. We used 
Geographic Information Systems data to determine the locations of 
mining claims on the Yucca Mountain site and compared them to the 
locations of the tunnels and other infrastructure on the site. 

We conducted our work from October 2010 to September 2011 in 
accordance with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that 
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan 
and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate 
evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations 
in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and 
the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings 
and conclusions in this product. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Concepts Proposed for Potential Alternative Uses of the 
Yucca Mountain Site Documented by GAO: 

Tables 1 through 5 provide a complete list of the alternative uses 
that were proposed by stakeholders we contacted, as well as examples 
of their benefits and challenges identified by experts we contacted. 

Table 1: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Nuclear 
Category: 

Proposed use: Energy park; 
Description provided by stakeholder: A commercial energy park for 
nuclear, solar, and wind power generation could be built on the site; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet electricity demand; 
* Would provide energy sources with low greenhouse gas emissions; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* High cost; 
* Lack of water at site; 
* Licensing and regulatory challenges. 

Proposed use: Interim storage of nuclear waste; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
centralized interim retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would benefit from past site characterization and licensing efforts; 
* Would allow for underground storage of nuclear waste, which may be 
safer than above-ground storage; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Issues and costs related to transporting waste to site; 
* Public acceptance of use. 

Proposed use: Medical isotope production, using an accelerator; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to create 
medical isotopes through the use of electron accelerators; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Would help meet 
national need for medical isotopes; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Lack of proximity to hospitals or other locations where isotopes 
would be used; 
transportation time given the short half-lives of medical isotopes; 
* High capital and operating cost. 

Proposed use: Medical isotope production, using a neutron generator; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to create 
medical isotopes through the use of neutron generators coupled with 
uranium blankets; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Would help meet 
national need for medical isotopes; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Lack of proximity to hospitals or other locations where isotopes 
would be used; 
transportation time given the short half-lives of medical isotopes; 
* Questions about viability of technology; 
more proof of concept needed. 

Proposed use: Mixed waste treatment facility; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a mixed 
waste treatment and research facility to conduct research into 
treating low-and mixed-level waste; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet national need for waste disposal; 
* Would benefit from some past site characterization efforts; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Public acceptance of use; 
* Licensing and regulatory challenges. 

Proposed use: Nuclear power generation; 
Description provided by stakeholder: Nuclear power could be generated 
on the site; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet electricity demand in country; 
* Would provide an energy source with reduced greenhouse gas emissions; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Lack of water at site; 
* High cost to build facility and transmission lines; 
* Licensing and regulatory challenges. 

Proposed use: Nuclear technologies research facility; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a 
research facility for advanced nuclear technologies; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Some research needs 
would benefit from remote location; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* May be difficult to staff facility with appropriate workforce; 
* Redundant facilities are currently located elsewhere, such as Idaho 
National Laboratory. 

Proposed use: Nuclear waste reprocessing; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
nuclear waste reprocessing and research, with the existing facilities 
used for temporary storage of nuclear waste throughout reprocessing; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would benefit from some past site characterization efforts; 
* Would make use of underground infrastructure for interim waste 
storage; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Extremely high cost; 
* Lack of water at site; 
* Public acceptance of use. 

Proposed use: Research reactor; 
Description provided by stakeholder: A high-temperature nuclear 
reactor for research and power could be built on the site; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would provide new energy sources of potential benefit to the country; 
* Would benefit from some past site characterization and modeling 
efforts; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* New custom design for reactor would be needed, which is currently 
only in the conceptual phase; 
* Cost; 
* Public acceptance of use. 

Proposed use: Underground nuclear reactor; 
Description provided by stakeholder: An air-cooled underground nuclear 
reactor could be built on the site; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would provide new energy sources of potential benefit to the country; 
* In the event of a nuclear accident, underground location may be 
safer than above-ground; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Cost; 
* Licensing and regulatory issues; 
* Limited applicability at other sites. 

Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and 
experts. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Defense 
and Homeland Security Category: 

Proposed use: Command and control facility; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could house a command 
and control or communications facility for continuity of operations; 
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: 
* Would provide redundancy for command and control facilities 
throughout the country; 
* Would benefit from the security and remoteness of site, which could 
help prevent security breaches; 
* In the event of a large-scale nuclear attack, underground location 
could increase survivability; 
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts: 
* Would need significantly more infrastructure than currently 
available at the site; 
* Limited water, data, and communications infrastructure currently 
available at the site would limit use; 
* Remote location would be a challenge for continuous staffing of such 
a facility. 

Proposed use: Command center for unmanned aerial vehicles; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The U.S. Air Force's command 
center for unmanned aerial vehicles could be relocated from Creech Air 
Force Base; 
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: Would benefit from 
security of site, which will be important in the future given that use 
of unmanned aerial vehicles is likely to increase; 
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts: 
* High cost; 
* Redundant facilities are currently located elsewhere at existing 
military bases. 

Proposed use: Homeland security activities; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
homeland security activities, such as a Center of Excellence, training 
facility, or demonstration facility; 
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: 
* Would provide the ability to test in both confined and open spaces; 
* Would provide national security benefits; 
* Would allow multiple tests to be carried out simultaneously; 
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts: 
* Remote location would be a challenge for staffing of facilities; 
* Costs of additional tunneling for geophysical experiments. 

Proposed use: Testing and training of the Active Denial System weapon; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
testing and training of the Active Denial System, a nonlethal, 
directed-energy weapon. The weapon may be used as a crowd-control 
device, which works by beaming microwave radiation, causing intense 
pain--but no damage--to people; 
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: 
* The tunnel would provide a controlled way to test numerous 
constrained conditions with low risk; 
* Due to the extensive tunnels and shielding of the surrounding rock, 
multiple tests could be run; 
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts: 
* Potential risks associated with use of such a device represent a 
significant risk of liability, as the system can be lethal in some 
situations; 
* Depending on the characteristics of the beam and interaction with 
the tunnel, the human effects might be more damaging than in an open 
environment. 

Proposed use: Testing of active interrogators; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to operate 
linear accelerators to characterize and test active interrogation 
systems, which generate x-rays, neutrons, or other types of particles 
to detect and identify nuclear or other dense materials. These systems 
would generate x-rays, neutrons, or other types of particles to detect 
and identify nuclear or radioactive materials or other highly dense 
materials within target objects, such as shipping containers or 
trailers; 
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: 
* Would provide national security benefits, including combating 
weapons of mass destruction and improving tracking of nuclear material; 
* The shielding provided by the mountain would provide for the safety 
of the testing organization and offer the necessary security given the 
sensitive nature of the operation; 
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts: 
* Issues and costs related to transportation of materials to site; 
* Some additional infrastructure would be needed. 

Proposed use: Training site for first responders; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
training and testing for first responder and emergency management 
activities, such as using the site for training the chemical, 
biological, radiological, and high explosive units from the Las Vegas, 
Nevada, metropolitan police; 
Examples of Potential Benefits noted by Experts: 
* Would provide security and emergency response benefits; 
* The shielding and containment offered by tunnel could facilitate 
training with nuclear materials; 
* Would allow responses that take place in an underground environment, 
such as a subway, to be simulated; 
Examples of Challenges noted by Experts: 
* The enclosed space limits some testing/training options; 
* Challenges with extrapolating the experience in the tunnels to other 
more open or urban settings, which is where most first responses take 
place. 

Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and 
experts. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the 
Information Technology Category: 

Proposed use: Public emergency communications site; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could house public 
emergency communications for public entities in the western states, or 
a private branch exchange switching site for emergency responders, in 
the case that commercial stations in Las Vegas, Nevada, or the western 
states were lost; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* The potential for high security of site could allow a facility to be 
quickly established; 
* Proximity to a major internet hub in Las Vegas could provide more 
flexible data transmission options; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Distance from Las Vegas, where presumably most first responders 
would be; 
* Challenges in trying to broadcast from within a submerged rock 
tunnel. 

Proposed use: Secure data storage; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a data 
center/colocation facility to house classified digital material from 
the federal government; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would benefit from the security of site, which would meet the needs 
of a facility housing classified digital material; 
* Proximity to a major internet hub could provide more flexible data 
transmission options; 
* Would provide cost savings if classified data sets that are now 
managed separately could be consolidated; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Risks and vulnerabilities should the infrastructure fail or be 
attacked; 
* Minimal data and communications infrastructure at the site would 
need to be significantly upgraded. 

Proposed use: Secure paper document storage; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
storing and protecting critical paper documents, as well as critical 
electronic data, to ensure that they are not lost in an emergency; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: Would benefit from 
the security and remoteness of site; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: Unclear whether the physical 
environment of the tunnel is appropriate for long-term document 
storage. 

Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and 
experts. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Energy 
Development or Storage Category: 

Proposed use: Compressed air storage; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The tunnel on the site could be 
used for storage of air compressed using solar-or wind-generated power 
during times of surplus electricity generation. The compressed air 
would later be released through a turbine to generate electricity when 
demand increases; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet need for research into compressed air storage; 
* Would benefit from the controlled and controllable nature of the 
site's cavities, which likely make it one of the only sites where 
research like this could be performed in a relatively controlled and 
modular environment; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Unclear how applicable the research would be to other sites in the 
world, given the site's uniqueness; 
* Permeability of the rock in the tunnel would require sealing; 
* Seismic concerns may affect this use, since the tunnel would need to 
be airtight. 

Proposed use: Facility to support renewable energy; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
research into renewable energy sources or carbon capture; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet need for additional research on renewable energy 
technologies and commercial advancement; 
* Would provide abundant space for solar energy and other equipment; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* High cost to build transmission lines; 
* No benefits of site over other sites for carbon capture research. 

Proposed use: Geothermal energy development; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
geothermal energy development in hot dry rock; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet need for additional research into geothermal energy, 
and hot dry rock in particular; 
* Would benefit from the site's remoteness because of the substantial 
drilling operations that would need to occur for this use; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Site is not located in an area of major geothermal activity; 
* Remoteness would limit utility of site; 
* High upfront costs. 

Proposed use: Pumped hydroelectric energy storage; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for pumped 
hydroelectric energy storage. Water would be pumped from a lower 
reservoir to an upper reservoir when there is surplus electricity; 
the water would then be released back through a turbine to generate 
electricity when demand increases; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would provide a unique demonstration project for a technology; 
* Would make use of the tunnel, which could serve as the lower 
reservoir; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Access to water; 
* Significant environmental impacts of application; 
* Requires nearby renewable energy production. 

Proposed use: Renewable energy storage laboratory; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used for 
research into compressed air and pumped hydroelectric energy storage. 
The tunnel could serve as a pressurized chamber for compressed air 
technologies or a reservoir for pumped hydroelectric storage; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet a need for research into storage of renewable energy; 
* Would benefit from past site characterization efforts on water flow 
through volcanic tuff; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* High costs; 
* Experimental technology with limited application. 

Proposed use: Solar energy development; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used to 
generate power from solar energy; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would benefit from the availability of land at the site; 
* Would contribute to research and development of solar energy; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Ruggedness of terrain may not be well-suited for solar energy 
development; 
* Lack of transmission lines and distance from population base to use 
electricity. 

Proposed use: Strategic petroleum reserve; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used as a 
strategic petroleum reserve for the western part of the country; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would enhance nation's energy security; 
* May provide a buffer against supply fluctuations in the petroleum 
market; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Tunnel is not large enough to hold a significant amount of 
petroleum, given current rates of consumption; 
* Transporting petroleum to the site. 

Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and 
experts. 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Proposed Alternative Uses of Yucca Mountain in the Scientific 
Research Category: 

Proposed use: Geological laboratory and sample storage; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The tunnel on the site could be 
used as a geologic laboratory to manage geologic samples; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would benefit from underground areas' large storage capacity; 
* Rare, valuable, or delicate samples would benefit from the site's 
security; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: Remoteness of site would make 
it difficult to transport and access samples. 

Proposed use: Highly-infectious disease research facility; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could serve as a center 
for research into highly infectious disease; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet the need for research in this area, which is of 
vital interest to scientists and those concerned with national 
security; 
* Would benefit from remoteness and security of facility; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Remote location would present challenges to collaboration among 
scientists as well as finding a skilled workforce; 
* Public reaction to use. 

Proposed use: Mining research and education; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The site could be used by a 
university to teach mining techniques; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would make use of the tunnel, which would provide large and 
accessible entry to a subsurface environment; 
* Would provide an excellent environment for mining education and 
training; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Little need for mining education and training; 
* Remote location would be a challenge for access to the site. 

Proposed use: Scientific and university research; 
Description provided by stakeholder: The tunnel and surrounding area 
could house large accelerators that would be used to explore the 
electronic and atomic structure of matter. This research could apply 
to a variety of areas, including conversion of solar energy, battery 
efficiency and storage, and pollution control; 
Examples of potential benefits noted by experts: 
* Would help meet a substantial research need; 
* Shielding of tunnel and remote location could offer benefits to this 
use; 
Examples of challenges noted by experts: 
* Tunnels may not offer the specific geometry needed for accelerators; 
* Remote location would present challenges to collaboration; 
* High cost. 

Source: GAO summary of information provided by stakeholders and 
experts. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: List of Experts GAO Consulted: 

* Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D. 
Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program, Natural Resources Defense Council: 

* John S. Crockett, Ph.D. 
Director, Research Project Development, San Diego State University 
Research Foundation: 

* Pamela Drew, Ph.D. 
Senior Vice President, TASC: 

* Donald Gibson, Ph.D. 
Vice President, TASC: 

* Herb Hayden, PE; 
Chief Technical Officer, Southwest Solar Technologies, Inc. 

* Andrew C. Kadak, Ph.D. 
Director, Nuclear Services, Exponent, Inc. 

* Joel Kurtzman, M.S. 
Executive Director, Center for a Sustainable Energy Future, Milken 
Institute: 

* Tom LaTourrette, Ph.D. 
Senior Physical Scientist, RAND Corporation: 

* Herb Lin, Ph.D. 
Chief Scientist, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 
National Research Council of the National Academies: 

* Jane C. S. Long, Ph.D. 
Associate Director at Large, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: 

* Brian B. Looney, Ph.D. 
Senior Advisory Engineer, Savannah River National Laboratory: 

* S. Andrew Orrell; 
Director, Nuclear Energy & Fuel Cycle Programs, Sandia National 
Laboratories: 

* Don Steeples, Ph.D. 
McGee Distinguished Professor of Geophysics, University of Kansas: 

* Ben K. Sternberg, Ph.D. 
Professor, Geological & Geophysical Engineering and Electrical & 
Computer Engineering, and Director, Laboratory for Advanced Subsurface 
Imaging, University of Arizona: 

* Darrell M. West, Ph.D. 
Vice President and Director of Governance Studies, and Director of the 
Center for Technology Innovation, Brookings Institution: 

* Chris G. Whipple, Ph.D. 
Principal, Environ: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Description of Buildings and Facilities on the Yucca 
Mountain Site: 

Table 6 lists the buildings and facilities that are currently at the 
Yucca Mountain site. 

Table 6: Description of Buildings and Facilities at the Yucca Mountain 
Site: 

Facility: Change House, Exploratory Studies Facilities North Portal; 
Description: Steel frame with interior shear walls; 
Year built: 1997; 
Dimensions: 12,250 square feet. 

Facility: Switchgear Exploratory Studies Facilities North Portal; 
Description: Light frame steel; 
Year built: 1998; 
Dimensions: 7,750 square feet. 

Facility: Booster Station Pump Enclosure; 
Description: Steel braced frame; 
Year built: 2007; 
Dimensions: 804 square feet. 

Facility: Office Trailer, Management and Operating Contractor Complex; 
Description: Light steel frame; 
Year built: 1987; 
Dimensions: 10,080 square feet. 

Facility: Office Trailer, Quality Control Field Office; 
Description: Light steel frame; 
Year built: 1993; 
Dimensions: 1,440 square feet. 

Facility: Office trailer for construction team; 
Description: Light steel frame; 
Year built: 1983; 
Dimensions: 3,600 square feet. 

Facility: Booster Tank, Yucca Mountain Project water supply; 
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment; 
Year built: 1999; 
Dimensions: 20,000 gallons. 

Facility: Booster Tank, Yucca Mountain Project water supply; 
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment; 
Year built: 1999; 
Dimensions: 20,000 gallons. 

Facility: Exile Hill Water tank; 
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment; 
Year built: 1999; 
Dimensions: 200,000 gallons. 

Facility: Potable Water tank; 
Description: Water supply for pumping and treatment; 
Year built: 1999; 
Dimensions: 50,000 gallons. 

Facility: Warehouse, tent #1; 
Description: Sprung Instant Structures; 
Year built: 1995; 
Dimensions: 13,290 square feet. 

Facility: Craft shops, tent #2; 
Description: Rupp Instant Structure; 
Year built: 1996; 
Dimensions: 13,500 square feet. 

Facility: Sub Surface Power Center; 
Description: Substation, transmission, and distribution; 
Year built: 1995; 
Dimensions: 25,918 KVA. 

Facility: Access roads; 
Description: Roads, walks, and paved areas; 
Year built: 1990; 
Dimensions: 30 miles. 

Facility: Sanitary sewer system; 
Description: Effluent disposal system with piping; 
Year built: 1996; 
Dimensions: 6,092 feet. 

Facility: Surface electrical system; 
Description: Electrical transmission and distribution; 
Year built: 1990; 
Dimensions: 1 system. 

Facility: Water distribution; 
Description: Water supply, pumping, treatment, and distribution; 
Year built: 1996; 
Dimensions: 35,948 feet. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOE data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
National Nuclear Security Administration: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

September 8, 2011: 

Mr. Gene Aloise: 
Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20458: 

Dear Mr. Aloise: 

The Department of Energy (Department) and National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) appreciates the opportunity to review the 
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report, Yucca Mountain 
Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related Challenges,
GAO-11-847. At the request of Senator Harry Reid, GAO was asked to 
examine (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site; (2) 
stakeholders' proposed alternative uses, and experts' evaluations of 
those potential alternative uses; and (3) challenges, if any, in 
pursuing alternative uses. 

We are providing comments that we believe will help clarify and 
improve the report in areas that may be confusing or misleading. 

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact 
JoAnne Parker, Director, Office of Internal Controls, at 202-586-1913. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Kenneth W. Powers: 
Associate Administrator for Management and Budget: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001: 

September 8, 2011: 

Jon Ludwigson: 
Assistant Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Denver Field Office: 
1244 Speer Blvd, Suite 800: 
Denver, CO 80204-3581: 

Dear Mr. Ludwigson: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the September 2011 draft 
of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 'Yucca 
Mountain: Information on Alternative Uses of the Site and Related 
Challenges' (GA0-11-847). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
has no significant comments regarding the technical accuracy of the 
GAO statement of facts as they relate to the NRC's role or activities. 
However, we have enclosed a few minor changes, which will clarify 
descriptions of NRC hearing activities and will correct the use of 
technical terminology. If we can be of further assistance, please do 
not hesitate to contact us. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

R. W. Borchardt: 
Executive Director for Operations: 

Enclosure: As stated. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Frank Rusco, (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Jon Ludwigson, Assistant 
Director; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Kevin Bray; Lee Carroll; John Mingus; 
Alison O'Neill; Anne Rhodes-Kline; Lesley Rinner; Jena Sinkfield; and 
Jacqueline Wade made key contributions to this report. Also 
contributing to this report were Debra Cottrell, Anne Hobson, Richard 
P. Johnson, Thomas Laetz, and Jennifer Leone. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For the purposes of this report, we have defined the Yucca 
Mountain site to include the location expected to house the potential 
nuclear waste repository as well as the surrounding lands that were 
withdrawn or on which rights were reserved for site investigation. Our 
definition of the Yucca Mountain site includes lands that DOE did not 
include in its license application for a nuclear waste repository at 
Yucca Mountain. 

[2] Our assessment of the site did not include an inspection of the 
tunnels. Following the President's proposal to eliminate federal 
funding for the Yucca Mountain Project, DOE terminated activities at 
the site in 2010 and took steps to close the site, including closing 
access to the tunnels and turning off utilities. As a result of these 
actions, DOE determined that reopening the tunnel for a day would cost 
$20,000 to $50,000. 

[3] The Nevada National Security Site was formerly known as the Nevada 
Test Site and is managed by DOE's National Nuclear Security 
Administration. The Nevada Test and Training Range was formerly known 
as the Nellis Air Force Range and is managed by the U.S. Air Force. 

[4] Some technical complexities, such as DOE's assessment of how heat 
from the spent nuclear fuel might affect the performance of the 
repository, became the focus of years of scientific inquiry. GAO has 
recently issued reports on the storage of spent nuclear fuel and high- 
level nuclear waste: GAO, Commercial Nuclear Waste: Effects of a 
Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons 
Learned, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-229] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2011); DOE Nuclear Waste: Better 
Information Needed on Waste Storage at DOE Sites as a Result of Yucca 
Mountain Shutdown, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-230] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2011); and Nuclear Waste Management: Key 
Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository 
and Two Potential Alternatives, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-48] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 
2009). 

[5] NRC has authority to authorize construction of the repository, as 
well as operations and closure of a repository, which are separate 
licensing actions. 

[6] In April of 2011, Congress passed a continuing resolution to 
provide funding for federal departments and agencies for fiscal year 
2011. In that legislation, Congress appropriated $0 under the heading 
"Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Nuclear Waste Disposal." 

[7] The Blue Ribbon Commission also delivered interim reports, with 
draft recommendations from its three subcommittees in the spring of 
2011. 

[8] For the purposes of this report, geophysical characteristics refer 
to geology, seismology, hydrology, and other natural processes related 
to the physics of the earth. 

[9] Activities on these sites include nonnuclear testing of nuclear 
bomb components to support DOE's stockpile stewardship 
responsibilities; nuclear device inspection and storage; pilot 
training, including dropping of live bombs; and testing of radar and 
other military equipment. 

[10] Mercury, Nevada, is a town in Nye County 65 miles northwest of 
Las Vegas, Nevada. As part of the Nevada National Security Site, the 
town is not accessible to the general public. As of October 1, 2010, 
responsibility for security of the Yucca Mountain site has been 
transferred to the National Nuclear Security Administration; see GAO-
11-229, 19. 

[11] The construction of the main Yucca Mountain tunnel was estimated 
at about $400 million between fiscal years 1994 and 1997, in then-year 
dollars. 

[12] GAO reported on the impacts of the termination of the Yucca 
Mountain project in April 2011; see [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-229]. 

[13] Medical isotopes are materials containing radioactive atoms that 
have useful applications in medical imaging and cancer treatment, 
among other things. 

[14] Reprocessing spent fuel requires that a reprocessing plant break 
apart the used fuel assemblies and separate the reusable materials 
from the remaining waste. The reusable materials are then fabricated 
into recycled fuel for reactors. 

[15] In its technical comments on this report, DOE noted that the Blue 
Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future recommended establishing 
centralized interim storage for high-level waste and spent nuclear 
fuel, in addition to developing a nuclear repository. 

[16] The Active Denial System is a nonlethal, directed-energy, crowd- 
control device which works by beaming microwave radiation, causing 
intense pain--but no damage--in people. 

[17] The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which currently holds about 700 
million barrels of crude oil, was created in 1975 to help insulate the 
U.S. economy from oil supply disruptions. 

[18] As noted previously, DOE's investigation of the Yucca Mountain 
site indicated that while the rock itself is believed to be 
impermeable to water, it contains fractures where water could migrate 
through it. 

[19] This use also relates to the nuclear and radiological uses 
category, but we categorized it into the scientific research category 
because it addresses a broad range of research interests. 

[20] According to an official from the Nevada Division of Water 
Resources, the agency responsible for managing the state's water 
resources, the state of Nevada grants water rights in part based on 
whether the water will be used for a "beneficial use." This official 
also noted that it may be difficult to get sufficient water rights for 
an industrial use that requires a large amount of water. 

[21] This includes high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel at five 
sites managed by DOE and several sites that have only research 
reactors that generate small amounts of waste. 

[22] Medical isotopes, like all radioactive materials, decay at a 
known rate. A half-life refers to the interval at which half of the 
radioactivity has decayed. Isotopes with short half-lives, like those 
used in medical applications, decay during shipping, requiring higher 
quantities of the material to be shipped than may be needed at the 
facility using them. 

[23] The parties included South Carolina and Washington state; Aiken 
County, South Carolina; and individuals from the state of Washington. 
DOE's Hanford Site and one commercial nuclear power reactor are 
located in Washington state, DOE's Savannah River Site and four 
commercial nuclear power stations are located in South Carolina, and 
the Savannah River Site is located in Aiken County. 

[24] The four-year period in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as 
amended, includes three years plus an additional year, if needed, for 
review of the license application. 

[25] This right-of-way (ROWR 47748) has been extended twice--in 2001 
and 2007--and is now scheduled to expire on December 31, 2014. The 
right-of-way does not extinguish existing valid rights--such as any 
mining claims--that existed before the right-of-way was granted in 
1988. 

[26] Under the General Mining Act of 1872, an individual or 
corporation can establish a claim to certain valuable mineral 
deposits--including gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, and copper--
generally known as hardrock deposits, on public land. Upon recording a 
mining claim with BLM, the claimant must pay an initial $34 location 
fee and a $140 maintenance fee annually per claim; the claimant is not 
required to pay royalties on any hardrock minerals extracted. 

[27] This land withdrawal order, Public Land Order 6802, 55 Fed. Reg. 
39,152 (Sept. 25, 1990), was extended by Public Land Order 7534, 67 
Fed. Reg. 53,359 (Aug. 15, 2002), until January 31, 2010. 

[28] According to Interior officials, the order withdrew the lands 
from the location of new claims and entry under the mining laws and 
leasing under the mineral leasing laws, subject to valid existing 
rights. 

[29] As part of its regular evaluation of mining claims on public 
lands, BLM determines whether the lands are open to location under the 
mining laws and potential mining activities, and whether claims were 
properly filed, which is referred to as "minerals adjudication." BLM 
officials told us that, prior to August 2011, they had determined that 
the expiration of the land withdrawal had automatically resulted in 
opening of the lands for mineral entry. 

[30] For these claims, BLM accepted payment, updated its electronic 
records system used to track uses of federal lands, and took other 
administrative steps to acknowledge the claims. At least two of the 
claims lacked complete documentation when they were submitted and BLM 
provided the claimants with an opportunity to correct these errors. As 
a result of the time allowed for these corrections, BLM officials told 
us that they had not yet completed their review of the claims but told 
us that BLM could still have determined that these two claims were 
active. 

[31] See 43 C.F.R. § 2091.6. 

[32] BLM officials told us that parties that hold mining claims can 
initiate limited mining exploration, including using earth-moving 
equipment, drilling and blasting, if claimants file a notice and pay a 
bond intended to guarantee that there are financial means to restore 
public land after mining exploration activities are finished. These 
activities are called "notice level activities" under BLM regulations. 
If BLM finds the bond to be acceptable, claimants may use mechanical 
equipment, including earth movers and explosives, but may not affect 
more than 5 surface acres of land per year. As of July 2011, BLM 
officials were not aware of any mining activities near the tunnel. 

[33] The lands historically controlled by DOE were provided through 
land withdrawal orders without expiration dates for specific purposes. 
The lands now comprising the Nevada National Security Site were 
provided to DOE's predecessor agency in 1952 for weapons testing, with 
subsequent withdrawals adding additional lands to the site. The lands 
now comprising the Nevada Test and Training Range were provided to 
DOD's predecessor agency in 1940 for use as an aerial bombing and 
gunnery range. The Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999, Pub. L. 
No.106-65, tit. XXX, subtit. A, § 3011(b), 113 Stat. 512, 886, 
superseded the earlier withdrawals and withdrew the land from 
appropriation under all public land laws for a number of defense 
related activities. 

[34] DOE's cost accounting procedures direct its contractor to charge 
other users operating on the site for a share of the costs of managing 
the site, and these costs could be high. For example, officials of the 
DOE contractor in charge of the site told us that electricity costs 
would be expensive--approximately double the cost of electricity 
charged by a nearby provider for local service, not taking into 
account the cost of supplying this electricity to the site from an 
external source. This cost would reflect the expense of providing and 
maintaining electrical service in the vast area of the site. 

[35] Such evaluations are done by the Nellis Air Force Base's Office 
of Public Partnerships, which evaluates and attempts to mitigate cases 
of potential interference. In addition, U.S. Air Force officials told 
us that future uses of the site would likely involve interagency 
agreements between the U.S. Air Force and the entities operating on 
the site. 

[36] In April 2011, Congress passed a continuing resolution to provide 
funding for federal departments and agencies for fiscal year 2011. In 
that legislation, Congress appropriated $0 under the heading 
"Department of Energy, Energy Programs, Nuclear Waste Disposal." 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: