Free Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 1 of 14

DOFJRW- O508

Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain
Overview

December 1998

Department of Energy s. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Yueca Mountain Site Characterization Office

0045

1\

A r\f"-r\'J 'J

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 2 of 14

This publication was produced by the U. S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
For further information contact: S. Department of Energy Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office

P~O. Box 30307
North Las Vegas , Nevada 89036-0307
or call: Yucca Mountain Information Center 800-225-6972
or visit: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project website http://www.ymp. gov

I'rinted with soy ink on recycled paper.

0046

P A- 196034

...... ................... ................................................................... ................ .............. ......,............................... """"" ..................... ................................:............................ ................................. .............. ..................... ....."............. ..,....... .. "' """"""'" ......".......... ....................."............... ........ .. ;...... ..................;........................,. ;... .............". ........ ...............". ..... .... ..... ;............ ...... ......... ........................................... ...... ..."...... """"""""""""" ...... .,.......

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 3 of 14

Contents
Introduction The Viability Assessment ... Results in brief.. ......................
:...... .................................................... ......... 1

Background
he nuclear waste problem """""""""""""""""""""""" """"""""""""""""'"....... 4

Geologic disposal.......... ............ ...................
Mountain? "".'" ..

:........ ""'" ............. 6

The law and the regulations ......................................... :.............................................. 8 How geologic disposal would work ..............................................................................
Why. Yucca

;............................................ 10
;............ .................. ............. 12 ; ."... ............ .............. ...........,.... .......... ,.... 13

Reference design
rhe design process

rhe reference design.. .......................

Performance assessment Performance assessment models ............................................................................... 18

disposal.................................................................................. The attributes......................................................... 19 of safe . 24
Possible dose ...... ...................... ..... ........

Other safety issues. ......

;.. ....... .............. ....... ...... 25

Iii

What we are learning

License application Plan to complete a license application ...................................................................... 27 .................. ... 28 Operational safety........... ...................
Long. ternt safety....... ........ ...
Estimated cost

;......................... 29

Cost of licensing, building, operating, monitoring, and closing
a repository. ...
Repository costs .

................ .... ...... 32 ;............ .............. .... .... ...... 33
~........... 34

Total system life cycle costs ....
Who pays? ............. .......

Conclusion Concluding observations .,......
Back matter
Endnotes ....... .....,..... ............. ............. .... .,.........

................... .......... 38

Glossary..... ........ ......
Acronyms .......... ...................................... ......... :.." ....... .................., .... .............. ........ ... 42

0047

P A- 196035

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 4 of 14

0048

P A- 196036

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 14

The Viability Assessment
The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) has

been studying a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for more than 15 years to deter. mine wh(,ther it is a suitable place to build . a geologic repository for the nation s commercial and defense spent nuclear fuel and high- level radioactive waste. This overview presents the results of DOE' s study to date.
In 1996, DOE announced that it would com-

tary of Energy on whether to recommend the Yucca Mountain site for a repository.
This overview of the of

Viability Assessment Mountain describes the nuclear waste problem and explains
Repository at Yucca

why the United States and other nations
are considering deep geologic disposal as the

solution. The overview describes why the
United States is considering Yucca Moun-

plete in 1998 a viability assessment of the Yucca Mountain site that would describe
the following:

tain and how a monitored geologic repository would work in the mountain. It presents a repository design, an assessment of its expected performance , and an evaluation of the possible effects on people living near Yucca Mountain. Also presented is the work remaining to be completed prior to a

. 'l' he preliminary design concept for the
critical elements of a repository and
waste package

. A

total system performance assessment

license application, along with the estimated cost of building and operating
a geo-

" based on the design concept and the sci-

entific data and analyses available by
19H8, that describes the probable behav-

logic repository at Yucca Mountain. Finally,

based on the information in the viability as-

ior of a repository in the Yucca Mountain
geologie setting
. A plan and cost

sessment , the overview concludes with
DOE' s

assessment of whether work at

Yucca Mountain should proceed.

estimate for the remaining work required to complete and submit a license application to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

, . An estimate of the costs to construct and
operate a repository in accordance with the dC"sign concept
.In the 1997 Appropriations Act l Congress

required DOE to prepare the viability assessment.
The purpose of the viability assessment is
to provide Congress, the President, and the
public with information on the progress of

the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization

Project. The assessment also identifies the

critical issues that need to be addressed
before a dC'.cision can be made by the Secre-

0049

P A- 196037

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM
Introduction

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 14

Results in brief
Based on the viability a~sessment , DOE believes that Yucca Mountain remains a
promising site for a geologic repository and that work should proceed to support a decision in 200l on whether to recommend the
site to the President for development as a repository. For the site to be rE.'Commended, DOE needs to demonstrate that a repository can be designed and built at Yucca Mountain that would protect public health and safety and the environment for thousands of years.

Uncertainties remain about

key natural processes, the preliminary design , and how the site and design would

interact. To address these uncertainties
DOE plans to advance the design , complete

critical tests and analyses , and prepare
draft and final environmental impact state-

ments. When this work is completed in
2001, a decision will be made by the Secretary of Energy on whether to recommend

the site to the President.
The advantages of Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site include its location

semiarid climate, and deep groundwater
table.
. Yucca Mountain is about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas , Nevada , on unpopu. lated land owned by the Federal Govern.

basin feature is unique to the western
region of the country.

The preliminary repository design includes
a long.

lived waste package and takes ad-

ment and adjacent to the Nevada Test Site. More than 900 nuclear weapons
tests have! been conducted at the Nevada
Test Site.
. Water is

vantage of the desert environment and geo. logic features of Yucca Mountain. Together,
the natural and engineered

barriers can

keep water away from the waste for thou-

the primary means by which ra-

dioactive elements (radionuclides) could be transported from a repository. Yucca

sands of years. Analyses of the preliminary design using mathematical models , though
subject to uncertainties, indicate that pub-

Mountain is located in a desert environ. ment , with an average rainfall of about 7 inches per ~' ear.
. The nearest groundwater ,

lic health and the environment can be pro. tected.
. For 10, 000

which is about

years after the repository is closed , people living near Yucca Moun.

000 feet below the planned location of
the repository, is isolated in a closed reo

tain are expected to receive little or
increase in radiation exposure.

no

gional basin and does not flow into any rivers that reach the ocean. This closed

. The

maximum radiation exposure from the repository is expected to occur after

0050

P A- 196b38

..

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 7 of 14
Introduction

years. People living approximately 20 kilometers (12 miles) from Yucca Mountain at that time might receive additional radiation

about 300,000

. Prepare an environmental impact

state. ment, publish it for public comment in
1999, and finalize it in 2000

exposures

equivalent to present- day background radiation.
Although current assessments of repository performance are encouraging, more work is needed before the site can be recommended and a license application for construction

These tasks will cost approximately $1.1 billion to complete. If the site is suitable and DOE submits a license application in 2002
the estimated cost to successfully compl~te
the licensing process ,

build a licensed re-

pository, emplace the waste, and monitQr

of a repository can be submitted to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

and close the repository is approximately $18. 7 billion , in constant 1998 dollars. Giverl adequate funding and successful
completion of the licensing process , th~ first

Current schedules anticipate that the Secretary of Energy. will decide whether to recommend the site to the President in 2001

after consideririgthe views of States, affected Indian tribes, and NRC, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In turn,
the President will decide whether to

waste could be emplaced in a repository in . 2010 , and the last waste , in 2033. With NRC approval , a repository could be closed

and sealed as early as 10 years after the
last waste is emplaced; or it could be kept open and actively monitored for hundreds
of years, ifit

recom-

mend the site to Congress. If Congress
agrees with the President' s

recommenda-

appears desirable to do so~ The $18. 7 billion cost estimate assumes a moni-

tion and the s ite is designated , DOE would submit to NRC in 2002 a license application for construction authorization. To support these plans , DOE wi11:
. Obtain more information on key

toring period of 100 years, beginning with initial waste emplacement. The repository is being designed to allow future genera-

tions to decide how long the repository should be monitored , and whether and
when to close and seal it.

natural

processes , including how radionuclides could be transported by groundwater beneath the repository
. Test. the

performance of candidate waste

package materials and evaluate alternative repository designs
. Continue analyzing the interaction be-

A monitored geologic repository is one component of a total waste management system. The total estimated future cost to complete the program , including transportation of waste and storage at the repository, is $36. 6 billion, in constant 1998 dollars. This

through closure and decommissioning, assumed to begin in
includes costs from 199~J

tween the repository and the natural

pro-

2110 and to be completed in 2116. It does
not include $5. 9

cesses
1'1'16
Viability Assessment

billion that has been spent

on the program through fiscal year 1998.

2000
Environmtntat Imp.lct StafelMnt

2001
S4Ie Rtcommtndltion

, 1003

Optiona' Cto~r.

11L
AsSUlllfd CIosUft
2....

Optional Closu!e

l . 2002 E~...ntbeg1ns
license AppIiation
Slop W lite Is unsultible

. 2010

t2ori

Ernpbcemelll~

Schedule for major repositOl)' milestones

0051

PA- Qh()~Q

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 14

Background

The nuclear waste problem
Countries worldwide have accumulated high. level radioactive waste by using
electricity, to power naval vessels , and to make nuclear ' weapons. Some elements of this waste are
nuclear materials to produce

hazardous for a few years to several hun-

dred years; some elements are hazardous for many' thousarids of years. This waste must be safely contained until it no longer poses a significant risk to human health and
.the .envirohmcnt. z

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. Buchanan , NY

DOE spent nuclear fuel
By 2035 , the United States will have accumulated ~pproximately 2 500 metric tons

of spent nuclear fuel from reactors that

pro-

Storage pool for commercial spent nuclear ruef

Commercial spent nuclear fuel
As of December 1998 , the United States had
accumulated 38

duce materials for nuclear weapons, from research reactors , and from reactors on the Navy s nuclear. powered ships and submarines. The majority of DOE spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at three major sites in Idaho , South Carolina, and Washington.

500 metric tons of used or

spent" lll\clear fuel from commercial
nudea,' power plants; this amount could more than double by the year 2035 if all
currently operating plants complete their

Under a negotiated settlement agreement between the State of Idaho, the Navy, and
DOE , all spent fuel must be removed from
Idaho by the year 2035~

initia140- year license period. The spent fuel is now stored in 33 states at 72 power plant
sites and one commercial storage site and

is likely to remain where it is until a dis-

posal or central storage facility is con. structed. When a power plant ceases op.
erations. the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials must be removed before the plant can be fully decommissioned
and the site used for other purposes.
F Area Tank Farm at Savannah River Site . near Aiken , SC

0052

1\

-1

O~()A ()

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 9 of 14

Background

High-level radioactive waste
The production of nuclear weapons has left
a legacy of high- level radioactive waste that

was created when spent nuclear fuel was treated chemically to separate uranium and
plutonium. The remaining high- level
is in liquid and solid forms; 100

must be disposed of in a secure facility that will not only keep the waste away from

waste

people but will also keep people away from. the weapons-usable material for thousands of years. Ensuring national security and

million gal-

lons are stored in underground tanks in Washington, South Carolina, Idaho , and
New York..

preventing the proliferation of nuclear
weapons depends on developing a permanent, safe, and secure disposal facility for surplus _ plutonium and other weapons materials.

Under agreements between

DOE and the states where the waste is stored , this high. level waste will continue to be solidified and placed in about 20 000
canisters for

Total inventory
At present, spent nuclear fuel and high- level

future disposal in a permanent

ge~Jogic repository.

radioactive waste are temporarily stored at

Surplus plutonium and other nuclear weapons materials
The end of the Cold War has brought the problem of cleaning up and closing weapons plants that are no longer

78 locations in 35 states ,

as shown below.

Some ofthese storage sites are close to popu-

lation centers and are located near rivers,
. lakes ,

needed arid

disposing of surplus plutonium and other

and seacoasts. The stored materials , ifleft where they are indefinitely, could become a hazard to nearby populations and the environment. These nuclear materials
require safe and permanent disposal.

nuclear materials associated with weapons

production. These radioactive materials

Locations of spent nuclear fuel and high.level radioactive waste destined for geologic disposal

As 01Oct-'30. 1998

0053

P A- 1 QROL1.1

... . ,~".

_._

- -

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM
Background

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 14

Geologic disposal

G~logic disposal of radioactive waste has
been the focus of scientific research for more

than 40 years. As early as 1957, a National Academy of Sciences ' report to the Atomic Energy Commission recommended burying
radioactive waste in geologic formations.

In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission began investigating salt formations, includ.
ing bedded salt and salt domes , as poten. tial host rock for repositories. In 1975 , the Energy Research and Development Admin. istration , predecessor to DO E , selected a site near Carlsbad , New Mexico , for the Waste. Isolation Pilot Project , which is to
dispose! of transuranic waste. In 1976 , the

Dry cask storage of oommercial spent nuclear fuel

Energy Research and Development Administration ah;o began to investigate other geo. logic formations and to consider different disposal concepts , including deep-seabed disposal, disposal in the polar ice sheets,
and rocketing waste into the sun. After extensive evaluation of the options , DOE con. cluded in 1981 that disposal in an underground mined geologic repository remained . the preferred option.

proach for nuclear waste disposal. A panel of ~he National Academy of Sciences noted

in 1990 that there is " a worldwide scientific consensus that deep geological disposal

the approach being followed by the United States , is the best option for disposing of high- level radioactive waste.
However , there are differing views on how

Unlike the hazards of toxic materials such as lead, mercury, and arsenic, which do not
. break down , the hazard of radioactive ma-

rapidly waste should be disposed of and whether it should be disposed ofirrevers. ibly. Some argue that waste should be
stored for several generations to allow sci. entists to learn more about. geologic disposal and to take advantage of new and better

terials declines over time. Early efforts to
study disposal options, therefore, sought to find the most effective ways for available
technologr to isolate waste long enough for

technologies that may come

along. That

would keep all options open for future gen.

the hazard to decline to low levels. That

search led to geologic environments that have remained stable for millions of years and are likely to remain so. Scientists
widely agreed that waste packaged in ro-

erations. But it would also require them to bear all the costs of exercising those options.

bust , long. lived waste

packages and placed

deep in such stable geologic environments

could be isolated from the biosphere for the long time periods necessary.

One way to preserve these options and still provide a permanent solution is to dispose of waste in a manner that permits , but does not require , the retrieval of waste; the waste would be disposed of, but not irreversibly.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 8 requires that spent nuclear fuel emplaced in

Since the first scientific study in 1957 , virtually every expert group that has looked at the nuclear waste problem has agreed
that a geologic repository is the best ap-

a repository be retrievable for any reason
pertaining to public health and the environment , or to permit recovery of the poten-

tially valuable contents of the spent fuel
prior to permanent closure of a repository.

0054

P A- 196042

:g .

&.

...

\,..;

: "

':"

.,

, .

-:' ~..'"'~

...

(jj
. ... ... ' "
..,

.,

-,

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 11 of 14

Background

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations require that a geologic reposi. tory be dosi,n1ed for waste retrieval at any time up . 1.0 50 years after waste emplacement begins.
Tho DOE is designing a monitored geologic

allowable under NRC regulations , or of keeping it open and monitoring it for hundreds of years.
A geologic repository will not require

per-

petual human care and will not rely on the

repository at Yucca Mountain that could give future generations the choice of clos-

stability of society for thousands of years into the future. It will rely instead on geo.
logic formations that have remained rela-

ing and sealing the repository as early as

tively stable for millions of years and on long- lived engineered barriers,

437

Nuclear Pow Opera tin!! World~
25

Nuclear Power Reactors

Being Built

Nuclear Power Reactors Ordered or Planned
79

\~~0~
. I
.J

.J I~ I\

II

JJI
ij ....c:.c:~ '0 . ~5:;.J ~ .E.!J~~~.E Qj~
et:

J
;"'4D ..O'- C'OC~ ~ ' ... E 2l. '2 (II ~~~.=.!2 g'U)
en!! 3=

!!1 .- C ,-E :- :g~:g,ga.-g8~ ~~'~e~s~~~. ~~s'~~ ... ... ,- :o(J)- c (J)CIl- 0.~OO"' G)~31 .0 ~ ... II OJc 0 0. w . f!S: ...
!l

E~Q) '5 IOU 00( (XI

.c:

jU .g tV

!: It. ~ It. t:

.c:

~ZS

et:

enG;~

~~OO(en

2'O. Glen cu J ~

=10 OpcfaiUIg Reaclors .

-10 aulding Reacl0f3

=10 Ordering or Ptan.w.g ReaGtOC$

Worldwide status of nuclear power reactors, In the United Stales, 104 operating reactors produce 20 percent orthe nation s electricity. Worldwide

data is from the fiies oflhe Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation , based on information as of June 5 , 1998.

0055

P A- 196043

~~~_

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 12 of 14

Background
~'n - ,

The law and the regulations
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(NWPA) directed DOE to develop a system

for the safe and final disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high- level radioactive
wastc.

program-to pay forthat effort. The NWP requires utilities with nuclear power plants to pay a fee to fund the disposal program. The Federal Government bears the costs of disposing of defense waste.
The NWP A also assigns distinct roles to the

The NWPA set an ambitious schedule for
DOE to site two geologic repositories and

Environmental Protection Agency
and the Nuclear Regulatory

(EPA)

required DOE to contract with utilities to begin disposal in the first one by January
, 1998. The DO E formally identified nine

COmmission

(NRC). The EPA is required to establish
standards for protection of the general en-

tion and later narrowed the list to three
sites: Deaf Smith County, Texas; Hanford Washington; and Yucca Mountain , Nevada. In 1987 , Congress directed DOE to study
only one of the sites-the one at Yucca

potentially acceptable sites across the na-

vironment from releases of radioactive ma-

terial from a repository. The NRC. is responsible for establishing technical

requirements and criteria , consistent with
EP A standards,

for approving or disapprov-

Mountain- to decide whether it is suitabl~
for a repository. This legislation, known as
the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act
of 1987 10 also

ing applications to construct, operate, and eventually close a repository. In 1981 and
1983 , NRC issued regulations for a geologic

established the Nuclear

repository in anticipation of EPA standardsY
Subsequently, the Energy Policy Act of
199212 modified the process for setting en-

Waste 1' echnical Review Board , composed of experts appointed by the President to re-

view the DOE program.

The NWPA . reaffirms the Federal
Government' s responsibility for developing repositories for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high. level radioac-

vironmental standards for a repository at Yucca Mountain. The Act directed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to pro-

vide findings and recommendations

on

tive wastc, It also affirms the responsibility of the generators of
the waste-the nuclear

utilities and the fed.
eral defense nuclear

standards for the Yucca Mountain site based on and consistent with the NAS findings and recommendations. The Act directed NRC to revise its regulations as necessary to be consistent with the EPA standards , once issued. The NAB published 13 The EPA is currently its report in 1995.
developing its standards.

these standards and directed EPA to issue

0056

P A- 196044

.j. ' .:, ," . . ... '~.
.. ~\:.

... .~, " .." , ."" . ,,:\ ' ~;" '..' " .. -,....,: ~":

" .~, ,--. ' ' ;+.. '
~~.

.,"!" :" . .~ ' ;:...~... ..,,
Filed 04/16/2004 Page 13 of 14

: :.

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-6

Background

How geologic disposal would work
. The baRic cancept of geologic disposal is to

place carefully prepared and packaged
waste in excavated tunnels in geolagic far-

they differ in the barriers they emphasize. The German disposal concept, far example relies heavily an the geologic bar~ier, the
rock salt farmation at the prospective dis-

matiang such as salt, hard rock, .or clay. The

cancept relies an a series of barriers, natu. ral and engineered , to contain the waste far

posal site. The Swedish method, on the
other hand, relies heavily an thick copper

thousands of years and to minimize the amount .of radioactive material that may
eventuaUy be transported from a repository
and reach the human environment.

waste packages to contain waste.
The U. S.

Water is the primary means by which radionuclidcs could reach the human environ-

approach, as rC'.cammended in the 1979 Report to the President by the Interagency Review Group an Nuclear Waste Management, 14 is to design a repository in which the natural and engineered barriers
work as a system, so that same barriers will continue to work even if .others fail , and so that none .of the barriers is likely to fail far

ment. Therefore, the primary functions of
the barriers are to keep water away fram

the waste as lang as possible, ta limit the amaunt of water that finally does contact
the waste ,

ta slaw the release of radionu-

clides from the waste, and to reduce the Can-

the same reason or at the same time. This design strategy is called defense in depth. The barriers include the chemical and
physical forms afthe waste, the waste packages and other engineerE!d barriers, and the

centrations of radionuclides in groundwater.
All countries pursuing geolagic disposal are taking the multibarrier appraach , though
;;:z:~

natural characteristics .of Yucca Mountain.

~f~,;t~:

~~ill!,,

h~l;- ' :;;Jii " .

~""OI:iI"". 'r'If~..,. i,;"':'

C":' :::i'"

V~.
I, '

Jjj.

l;oj

t.IJ!.. ,.

r;.

CUtaway showing artist's concept of the complex of underground tunnels into v.tlich waste would be emplaced. A repository at Yucca Mountain

would rely on the semiarid dimare, natural barriers. and engineered barriers to contain and isolate waste for thousands of years.

l\l\l::'7

1\ A

nf"-n

A c:

----Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM
Background

Document 315-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 14 of 14

Why Yucca Mountain? .
Yucca Mountain is remote from PQPulation
centers. Located about 100 miles northwest
years. Based upon what

is known about

of Las Vegas, Nevada , Yucca Mountain is
on the edge of the nation' s nuclear weap. ons

the site, disruption of a repository at Yucca Mountain by volcanoes , earthquakes, ero-

tests have been conducted. This

test. site, where more than 900 nuClear

sion , or other geologic processes and events appears ' to be highly unlikely.
Yucca Mountain has a desert climate. This

unpopulated land is owned by the Federal Government.
Yucca Mountain provides a stabie geologic

is important because water movement is the primary means by which radioactive waste
could be transported from a repository.

environment. . A flat. topped ridge running
six. miles from north to south, Yucca Moun.

. average,

Yucca Mountain currently

receives

about seven inches of rain and snow per
year. Nearly all the precipitation, about 95 percent, either runs off or (~vaporates. Geo-

tain has changed little over the last million

logical information indicates that the reo
gional climate ~as changed over the past

location of the proposed monitored geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Nevada

0058

P A- 196046