Weekly Updates

LegiStorm is constantly adding new information on the people, places and reports in our database. In the past week, LegiStorm added:

  • 49 new people
  • 158 new organizations
  • 357 job history records for people in our database
  • 93 education records for people in our database
  • 127 contact addresses, emails and URLs (LinkedIn, Facebook, etc.)
  • 6 new people through the revolving door
  • 41 new policy reports
  • 67 new trips to our privately funded travel database
  • 97 new personal financial disclosures
  • 50733 new tweets
  • 7523 new press releases
 LegiStorm Blog
 SOCIAL MEDIA

 DEVBLOG
 IN THE NEWS

Energy: DOE Should Provide More Information On Monitored Retrievable Storage - GAO Report

Date: June 18, 1987
Report No.: T-RCED-87-35
Pages: 11
  Download  PDF Download PDF Now
Summary:

GAO discussed the Department of Energy's (DOE) proposal to construct and operate a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility for spent nuclear fuel, focusing on whether the proposal provided adequate information for a congressional decision on whether to authorize the facility. GAO noted that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act: (1) authorized DOE to dispose of commercial spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes in a geologic repository; and (2) required DOE to study long-term waste storage in one or more MRS facilities as an option for safe and reliable spent-fuel management, and to submit to Congress a proposal for adding such facilities to the authorized waste system. GAO found that the DOE proposal: (1) recommended MRS for handling and temporary storage, rather than for long-term storage as described in the act; (2) did not fully explore non-MRS alternatives for improving the current waste management system; and (3) did not estimate the full costs of building and operating an MRS facility. GAO believes that the MRS proposal does not provide enough information for Congress to determine: (1) if other improvements to the current waste system can provide many of the perceived benefits of the MRS facility at less cost; or (2) whether the added benefits DOE expects outweigh the additional costs.

« Return to search Government Accountability Office reports