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

..'

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 1 of 14

. the m.ovement .of radi.oactive material thr.ough the repository in the event

.of a release .olthis. material; the effect .of volcanic activity .on the repository; and . die c.ombined effects of heat, water, and chemical pr.ocesses in and around the tUlUlels where tile waste cantainelS wauld be placed
According t.o' ~ffi~iaJs in OOE' srepository pr.oject .om~e , the am.ount .of current sci~tific unceitafuty within each .of these areas vanes. F.or ~ample, the fl.oW .of water under c.onditi.ons thr.ough the area .

nat~

where the repository W.ould be located is relatively well uqderstood. 111 contrast, there is' much m.ore current uncertainty about h.oW the c.ombinati.on .of heat. water, and chemical processes caused by the presence .of m~clear waste, in the .repository w.ould affect the fl.oW .of water

throu~ the

repository.

. The NRC staff's c.oncerns .over the supp.orting inf.ormati.on f.or the

. mathematical m.odelsthat DOE w.ould use as its primary tool f.or assessing the perf.omlance of the reposit.ory rev.olved primarily ar.ound validating the m.odels arid verifying the inf.ormati.on used in the models. Perf.onnance assessment is an analytical meth.od that relies .on c.omputers t.o .operate

mathematical models to assess the perf.ormance of the rep.osit.ory against . EPA's health and safety standards, NRC' slicensing regltJati.ons, and DOE' guidelines f.or det.ennining if the Yucca M.ountain site js suitable f.or a rep.osit.ory. DOE uses thedatac.oUected during site characterizati.on . actiVities to model haw arep.osit.ory system , c.ompriSing both natural and . ~ngineered features, w.ould perf.orm at the Yucca M.ountain si~ Some .of DOE' s mathematical mOdels describe the behavi.or .of individuai phYsical :md chemical processes, suc~ as haw, qUickly water might travel from the -'surface to the reposit.ory. DOE then links the results .of these Individual
models together into a computer model represexiting the perf.onnance .of the .overaU repositOry system. DOE then uses this m.odel , called a
"perf.ormance assessment m.odel " to estimate the release .of radioactivity fr.on\ a rep.ository under a range .of c.onditi.ons and .over th.ousands .of yeaIS.

The m.odel als.o enables DOE to f.orecast the dose .of radiati.on t.o hyp.otheiicaI pelS.ons living in tile vicinity .of the rep.osit.ory and c.ompare
them with EP A's

health and safety standards. DOE' s agreements with NRC are centered .on validating the models-presenting inf.ormati.on to pr.ovide

c.onfidence that the models are valid f.or their intended use-and verifying
the infornlati.on that has been collected during the site investigation and
used in these m.odels.

In additi.on to the NRC staffs c.oncerns ab.out DOE' s m.odels , NRC'

Advisory Committee .on Nuclear Waste has raised c.oncerns about the

Page 10

0017

GA.o-O2- 1!ti Nuclear WMte

;;;,

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 2 of 14

'.1

adequacy of the perf.onnance assessmentm.odel that DOE used to SUPP.ort
the inf.ormation discussed in.the technical documents it has issued to SUPP.ort a site recommendati.on.1 In a September 18, 200 I , letter to the chairman .of NRC. the c.ommittee c.oncluded that the m.odel did n.ot pr.ovide a JJasis f()f estimating performance and did n.ot inspire c.onfidence iri the modelirig process. The c.ommittee s c.onc~usi.ons were based .on its c.oncern

that the modeling

is guided by an inc.onsistent set of asswupti.oUS, including a mixture .of c.onservative and n.onc.oriservative b.ouuding assumpti.ons, that d.on.ot repreSent realistic c.onditi.ons c.omputati.ons and analyses that d.o n.ot relies .on many assumpti.onSUPP.ort .or link the assumpti.ous with available evidence.

b~

~d

Acc.ordlng t.o the director .of DO E' s
:::l)
,

reposit.ory pr.o~ect .office

, the additi.oual

w.ork surrounding the 293 agreementS wi~ NRC'$ staff is an insignificant additi.on t.o the extensive anl.ount.of technical w.ork already c.ompleted.
M.oreover, this .official d.oes n.ot expect that c.ompleting the additi.onal . technical w.ork will change DOE' s current performance assessmei\t of a rep.ository at Yucca M.ountain. Al~.o, in commenting .on. a draft.of .our rep.ort, DOE stated that it has compiled an: en.orm.ol1S b.ody .ofsciEmtific and technic3I work .over the last 2 decades inclt.tding s.ome. 600 papelS cited inane .of the recently published rep.orts. The Department also cited a substantial b.ody .of analytic literatUre it has published in recent years.
FrOm NRC's pelSpective, however, the agreements pr.ovided the basis f.or

give DOE, as required by the Nuclear Waste P.olity Act, its preliminary sufficiency.of DOE's inve::;tigati.on ..of the Yucca M.ountain site f.orinclusi.on .inafuture license appli~.or( In a N.ovember 13, 2001
it 1;.0

c.olUinents .on the

tetter t.o the Under Secretary .of Energy, the Chairman .of the NRC
c.ommented that

(aJlthough significant additional work iq needed prior to the submission of a possible license application, we believe U13.t agreetuents reached bel:\veen DOE and NRC staff

, established by NRC to advise it on nuclear waste regulatory issues . t"omprises experts in several disciplines, including risk assessment.

'i The conunittee

S DoE mentioned its Viability Assessment (1998). Preliminaty Site Suitability E\I~luation

(2001), Supplem'.ntal Science and Performance Analyses (2001), Draft; Environmental Impact Statement (1999), and Supplement to !he draft ETS (2001).

Page 11

GA.o- O2- 191 'Nuclear Waste

0018

- ,

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 3 of 14

regarding the collection of additional infonnation provide the basis for concluding that development of an 3CC('ptable license :8Ppli;aUon is a("hievable.

The NRC Chairman' s letter aIs.o pointed .out that NRC' s Advis.ory Committee .on Nuclear Waste noted, similar to the NRC staff, that substantial additi.onal wQrk by DOE is needed pri.oJ;" to its submissi.on .of a license appli~.on. '

Since its first rep.ort to the Congress and Secretary .of Energy

in 1990 , the B.oard has c.orisistently raised issues and concerns .over DOE' lmderstanding .of the expected lifetime .of the ~aSte C.oritaU1elS, the significance .of the unce~ties inv.olved in the m.odeljng .of the scientific data, and the need f.or an evaluati.on and comparison 91 a repoSitory design

having' a higher temperature with a design. havi~g a l.ower temperature. The Board c.ontinues to reiterate thesec.oncerns in corresp.ondence to DOE' s director .of the nuclear waste pr.ogram. and in its reports to the

C.ongress and the Secretary of Energy. F.or example, in an August 2000 letter to the Subc.ommittee on Energy and P.ower, H.ouse Committee .on Conm\erce , the Board rep.orted th~ the technical basis f.or DOE' s I.ongterm projecti.ons .of rep.osit.ory perf(,)rmance had "critical weaknesses. " The B.oard explaine4 that same .of the large uncertainties ab.out the ,proposed ,rep.ository s perf.ornlance .over th.ousands .of years-including the

estimated c.oiT.osi.on rates .of waste containers and predicted behavi.or .of system-were greater at the higher temperatures that W.ould result frOD;l DOE' s design .of the repository. At a January 2001 public meeting with DOE, the B.oard t.old DOE that t.o detennine whether the use as a rep.ository, DOE must Yucca M.ount3in site is suitable f.oCUS its f.or a,ttenti.on .on f.our-vn.ority issues: (I) quantifYin~ the Uncertatnties in the models Used t.oestiotate therepooitory s perf.onnance; (2) gaining a further unde~ding .of the processes related t.o the c.orr.osi.on of waste
the geol.ogic

c.ontainers; (3) evaluating and c.omparing a rep.ository design having a higher temperature with a design that has a l.ower temperature; and (4) devel.oping evidence .other than perf.omumce assessment modeling t.o support the estimates .of repository perf.ormance.

fit Oct.ober 2001, the Board rep.orted that. despite DOE' s pr.ogress in resp.onding to the B.oard's c.oncerns, gaps in data and analyses make
evaluation .of DOE' s technical bases.on whether to rec.ominend the site

m.ore difficult The B.oard provided several examples .of these gaps. First, the B.oard n.ot.ed that DOE has n.ot yet c.ompleted a tomparis.on , promised in a May 30 2001 , letter t.o the B.oar~ between a high-temperature and a l.ow-temperature repository design. The B.oard explained that a design
with a l.ower temperature has the potential t.o reduce the level .of

Page 12

0019

GA.o-O2. 1~1 'Nuclear Waste

:~,':;

, ,

,~

,'

,,
Page 4 of 14

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

uncertainty in DOE's modeling results. Sec.ond, DOE d.oes n.ot appear have implemented the Board' s suggesti.on, made in tw.o previ.ous lettelS to
to examine m.ore cl.osely the c.ontributi.on that each piece .of natural and engineered banielS makes to the repository s .overall perf.onnaI\ce. Third, tlle BOard .observed U\3tDOE had n.ot presented aelear and DOE,

pelSUasive rationale f.of g.oing f.otward with a site rec.omIilendati.on bef.ore
resolving the imp.ort:ant issue .of

the potential c.onsequenceS

to the

repoSitory frOm v.olcanic actiVity. Last, the B.oard asked that, ifth~ , analyses refeIrCd to in the letter w.ould n.ot be aVailable before DOE' decisi.on .on whether ,to recommend the site to the President" DOE provide

its ratl.onale explaining why the analyses are n.ot import3.Ot far

site

recommendati.on as well as any plans f.or subsequently conducting the work if the site were rec.ommended and appr.oved f.or rep.ository

devel.opment.

:...J

Recent rep.orts t.o' DOE by the U. S. Ge.ological Survey and an ,internati.onal peer review team pr.ovide further insights int.o DOE' s site investigati.on. An

October 2001 letter tram the U. S. Geol.ogical Survey (USGS), which l.ong played an active r.ole hi the site investigati.on, stated that the scientific
w.ork petf.ormed t.o date supports a decisi.on t.o rec.ommend the site f.or development as a rep.ository. H.owever, US~S qualified its positioJ,l by

n.oting that it wasconm1.enting .only within the scope

.of

its earth science

expertise and was neutral regarding .other inf.ormation the Secretary might c.onsider. USGS also P.ointed ant that additi.onal studies need t.o be perf.ormed even after a site rec.ommendati.on.
In November 2001 an internaU.onal peer review panel released an executive summary .of the results of its review .of DOE' s perf.oooarice '
, assessment inodeling f.or a potential site

recpmmendatl.on. The panel,

which perf.ormed the review at DOE' s request. was .organized by the
Nuclear Energy Agency .of

the Organizati.on f.or Economic Co.operati.on and
.of

Devel.opment and the Internati.omil Atomic Energy Agency

the United

Nati.ons. The panel did n.ot c.omment.on the results .of DOE' s modeling , efforts but found that DOE' s meth.odol.ogy is s.oundly baSed and implemented in a competent inanner. Overa)l, the panel stated, DOE' appr.oach pr.ovides an adequate basis f.or supporting a statement .on likely c.ompliance within the regulatory peri.od of 10 000 years and f.or a site rec.onmlendati.oudecisi.on. The panel alS.o qualified its findings, h.owever
by stating tl\3t the findings were based .on

a brief review and n.ot an

in-depth analysis. The panel als.o called f.or a number .of in1pr.ovements in
DOE' s approach to perf.om1al1ce assessment. including dem.onstrating an understanding .of the behavi.or .of the .overall reposit.ory system rather than

Page 13

GA.o-O2- 19.1 ,tluclear Waste

0020

:~.,:. " .:.

..
Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM Document 315-4 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 5 of 14

f.ocusing.on the numerical results .of the assessment, and identifying and treating al. types .of uncertainty in the modeling.

As recently ~ May 2001 , DOE pwjeCted that it C.ould submit a license applicati,.on to NRC in 2003. It n.ow appealS, h.owever, that DOE may n.ot complete all .of the additional tecIm;.cal w.ork that it has agreed to d.o to prepare an acceptable license $.plicati.on until January 2006~ In September 2001, B~h.teJ .c.oriipleted, at DOE'$ directi.on, a detmied ~essment in eff.ort,to reestablish a cost and schedule baseline; Bechtel estinU1ted that DOE could c.omplete the .outsf:andmg technic3J. \V.ork agree d to with NRC and submit a license applicati.on in January 2006. This est4nate was based

.on guidance from DOE that, fu part, directed the c.ontiactor to assume ~ual funding far the nuclear waste pr.ogrmu .of $410 milli.on in fisCal year
2002, $455 million "in fiscal year 2003 , and $465 milli.on in fIScal year 2004

~d thereafteF~ DOE has n.ot accepted this estiinate because, according to pr.ogram officials, the estimate would extend the date f.or submitting a
licenSe applicati.on tOo far into the "future. Instead, DOE is n.ow C.onsidering accepting only the fIScal year 2002 P.orti.o~ .of Bechtel' s detailed w.ork plan and requesting Bechtel to prepare another w.ork plan f.or fIScal year 2003 tlu'.ough submissi.on.of a license applicati.on.

Essentially the Same 'Infonnation Is Needed for,
.- a Site

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and DOE' s site suitability guidelines, while the site ree.ommendati.on and a license applicati.on are separate
prOCesses, DOE Will. need t.o use essentially the same data far b.oth.

Recornn:tenclation

and a License Application

Further, site recoInmendati.on and license applicati.on are cOnnected by
Jaw with specific timeframes that require DOE to submit a license applicati.on to NRC within ab.out 5 to 8 m.onths .once the President
c.onsidelS the site qUalified f.or a license applicati.on and makes a site

rec.ommendati.on to the C.ongress.
Under the act. DOE' s site characterization activities are t.o provide informati.on necessary t.o evaluate tIle Yucca M.ountain site' s suitability f.or

submitting a license applicati.on to NRC far placing a rep.ository at the site. In implementing tile act. DOE's guidelines pr.ovide that the site will be suitable as a waste rep.ositor;Y if the site is likely to meet the radiau..on
protecti.on Standards that NRC w.ould use to reach a licensing decisi.on .on

the prop.osed rep.ository. Thus , as stated in the preamble (introducti.on) to DoE' s guidelines, DOE expects to use essentially the same data f.or the
site rec.ommendati.on and the license applicatipn. '

In additi.on, tIle act specifies that) having received a site reconunendati.on fr.om the Secretary, the President shall submit a rec.ommendati.on .of the

Page 14

0021

GAO-O2- 191 'Nuclear Waste

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 14

~-:;"f

site to the Congress iftl\e President c.onsiders the site qualified

far

license applicati.on. Under the process laid .out in the Nuclear Waste P.olicy Act, .once th~ Secretary makes a site rec.ommendati.on, there is ria limit .under which the ~ident must act .on the Secretary's

~e

recommendati.on. H.owever, .once

President makes a recommendation to the Congress that it approve the site, specific statutory time tiames are
the

triggered f.or, the next ~ps iD. the process. Figure 1 sh.oWS the apPr9ximate statutory. time needed between a siterecomm~ndati.on and , submission .of a license aPpliCation and the additi.onal time needed far'
DOE to meet the c.onditi.ons far

an accept$le license applicatl.on.

F.or

illustrative purp.oses, figure 1 asst1ffies that the SecretarY fec.onm\ends the site to the President.on January 30, 2002 and the. President recommends .on July 3OJ 2002.. The figure als.o the site to the' C.ongress6m.ouths ~te but that the Congress' .overrides assumes tpat Nevada ~ppr.ov~ the the state'sdisapproVal As sh.oWU in the figure, Nevada haS 60 days to (.of , disappr.ove the site, and if disappr.ovedJ the Congress ~as 90 days enact legislati.on .overriding the state' continu.ouS sessi.on) in which to

l~

disappr.oval. If the Congress .overrid~ the state' s disappr.oval and the site designati.on takes effect. the next step is f.or the Secretary to submit a license appliCatl.on t.o NRC within 90 days after the site designati.on is

effective. On the basis .of Bechtel's latest program reassessment, -DOE
W.ould bein a p.osition to submit a iicense applicati.on to NRC in January

2006.
These statut.ory time frames pr.ovide about 150 to 240'days J .or ab.out 5
, 8 Ju.onths

from the time the President makes a reC.onm1endation to DOE' submittal .of a license appli(:atl.on. DOE, h.owever, will not be ready t.o file f.or sev~ yeats." (See fig. 1.) an aCceptable applicati.on with NRC
the Secretary of Energy sh.ould c.onsider the timing .of this

, Theref.ore,

statutory pr.ocess as be decides when to make a site rec.onunendation to
the President. '

0 In the C'ongressional conference report on fiscal year 2002 appropriations for energy and

water development, , the conferees stated that tbey a-pect DOE to deliver the final site reconunendation report and em,irollmental hilpact st.at~ment 1:0 tbe Congress by Feb. 28. 2002. They recognized that certain scientific and engineering work is directly related to the sit~ s ll!commendatioll and t.o resolving technical concerns of NRC and the Board, and that such work should not automatically tenuinat,e uPon submission of the site

reconunendation." H.R. Rep.

No. 107-

258. at 122 (2001).

Page 15

GA.o-02- 1~1-Nuclear Waste

0022

,'

;';" .. ';"

,~~~~~. " ; . ::- .

.~.,

,"', ',. -",."" Document 315-4

-.

,'

......
Page 7 of 14

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Filed 04/16/2004

, Figure 1: Comparison of Statutory Site Approval Process With DOE' s Projected Schedule
Statulory time
(about 5 to 8 monIf!8)
Ad'dlllonal time needed to meet agreements

. nuary 2002 ,

.. " Janu8

Y 2006

; Jii I!tG

~:L
fo' . .

:~ii~"it~if~:,

. No prescribed statutory lime frame.
90 calendar days of ,continuous session of the Congress.

DOE Is Unlikely Open a Repository in 2010 as Planned

, DOE; in a d.ocument that' would SUPP.ort a p.otential site rec.ommendati.on
states that it may be able to .open a repository at Yucca M.ountain in 2010. This expectati.on is predicated .on the submissi.on .of a license applicati.on to N~C in 2003, receipt .of the c.o~cti.on ,auth.orizalion in 2006, and

coustmcti.on.of enough surface and undergr.ound facilities to begin putting wastes int.o the repository hl2010. H.owever according to Bechtel's September 200 1 detailed reassessment .of the nuclear waste program, in which it ptoP.osed to reestablish a baseline far the pr.ogram, a m.ore realiStic date far submitting the license appiicati.on may be January 2006.
Reestablishing the pr.ogram's

baseline is necessary because DOE st.opped

using the baseline to manage the program in March 1997. Since then, progriun .officials have uSed revised estimates for the license appIiCati.on date in vari.oUS int.ernal and external rep.orts, but n.one .of these changes were appr.oved as required and the program s cost and schedule baseline has never been revisOO to reflect these changes. As a result, DOE d.oes n.ot have a baseline estimate .of the program s schedule and C.ost that is based, .on all the w.ork that it expecl'3 to complete thr.ough the submissi.on .of a
license applicati.on. Because .of uncertainty .over '\-",hen DOE may be able to .open the rep.osit.ory, the Department is expl.oring altematives that might still permit it to begin accepting c.on"",1ercial spent fuel in 2010.

Page 16

GAO- O2- L!H -Nuclear Waste

0023

, -" ") ,

.

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 14

DOE' s CurrfYnt License'

In its m.ost recent report .on the progranl s estimated

Application Milestone Date Is Not Supported by the Program' s Baseline

DOE states that it expects to submit the applicati.on to NRC in 2003. 111Thjs date reflects a delay in the license aPplication milest.one date laSt appr.ovedby DOE in

March 1997 that targeted March 2002 f.or submitting a license applicati.oD. The 2003 date was n.ot f.onnally approved by DOE' s s~niormanageIS.or
incOlp.ora!ed into the pr.ogram~s cost and schedule base~ne, as requii-ed by , the management procedures that were in effect f~r the program. At l~ast three exteRsi.ons f.or ~e license application date have been pr.opose,d, but n.one .of the three proposals: have been approved as reqUired.

DO E

waste prdgram,t.o receiv~ special attenti.on fr.om seni.or DOE managers because .of the c.omplexity .or C.osts .of the programs and projects. DOE' s guidance for managing the~ designated programs and

d~~

s.ome

.of

its pr.ograms and pr.ojects, such as the n~1clear

~ated

projects requires, anl.ong .other

i:'

aseline f.orm3naging the pr.ogram .or project. The b~une d~cribes the program s missi.on-in this case, the safe disp.osal .of highly radi.oactive waste in a ge.ol.ogic rep.ository-and the expected technical requirements schedule,. and C.ost to c.omplete the pr.ogram. Procedures f.of c.ontrolling
changes to an approved baseline are designed t.o ensure that pr.ogram maM8elS c.ollsider the expected effectS of adding, deleting, .or modifying technical w.ork, as well as the effects .of unanticipated events, such as funding sh.ortfalls, .on the pr.oject' s missi.on and baseline. In this way, alternative C.oUlSes .of acti.oncan be assessed .on the basis .ofeach acti.on effect .on the base~ine. D()E' s pr.ocedures f.or managing U1e P.otential

things, that Sem.of manag~rs establish a

, nucl~ waste program require that program managerS revise the b~eline
as appr.opriate, to reflect any significant changes to the program.
After March 1997, acc.ording to DOE .offici3Is they did n.ot always f.oll.oW
these c.ontrol pr.ocedures t.o acCount for proP.osed changes to the pr.ogram s baseline , induding Ule changes pr.oP.osed t.o extend the date f.or license applicati.on. AcC.ording to these saine .officials, they stopped f.oll.owing the c.ontr.ol procedures because the Secretary.of Energy did n.ot,

approve pr.oPosed extensi.ons t.o the license applicati.on milestone. As a
result, the .official baseline did n.ot accurately reflect the pr.o~l S cost and schedule to c.omplete tlie, remaining W.ork necessary to submit a

license applicaD..on.
10 See Analysis of AU: Total System Life.

Cycle Cost of tile Cit'ilian Radi.oad, i"t'e Waste

M(J1wgemcnt

Progm1Jl. (DOEIRW-Q53-3, May 2001).

Page 17

0024

GA.o~2-191

Nuclear Waste

, '.." .

, ,

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 9 of 14

,I

In N.ovcmber 1999, the YuccaM.ountain site investigati.on .office proposed
extending the license applicafi.on milestone date by"

10 m.onths, froIq

March to December 2002, to c.ompensate far a $57.8 milli.on drop in funding f.or fiscal year 2000. Acc.ording, to the specific management procedures tlUlt DOE adapted far the ,nuclear waste program, a proposed extensi.on in the li~nse application milestone required the, approval .of .of the nuclear waste program and the Secretary' .of ' b.oth the

ei~er of these .officials ~pr.oved this propOSed change n.or was , the baseline reVised to reflect this change even th.ough the Director subsequently began 'rep.orting the December 2002 date in quarterly
Energy. N

~.or

perf.onnance reports ~, the

Deputy Secretary.of Energy.

Less than a year later. in September 2000, the site investigati.on .office .once agaill pr.oposed.an ext.ensi.on t.o t;he license applicati~n mile$tone to July 2003 becaUse' of reduced funding and added tecnni~aI: work. Then, in
February 2001 , the site investigati.on offic~ proposed an.other extensi.on in the milestone, to December 2003. As with the N.ovember 1999 ex.t.ensi.on request. neither the Director .of the nuclear waste pr.ogram n.or the n.of was Secretitry .of Energy approved either .of the latter tw.o either extensi.on date f.or the license applicati.on I11.ilestone inc.orp.orated , into the baseline far the pr.ogram. Furthennore~ as with the N.ovember 1999' pr.oposed change , DOE began to use the unappr.ovedmilestone dates in both internal and exteniaI reports and c.on,mmnications. F.or example,

requ~

the Director used the unappr.oved

2003 date f.or submitting a license
in May 2001. Later, in a

applicati.on twice in c.ongressi.onal testim.ou:y

September 2001 mem.orandum t.o the DOE Under Secretary discussing the g.oals .of the nuclear waste program thr.ough January 2005, the Director established 2004 ~ his g.oai f.or submitting a license aPplica,ti.on. '
Because seni.or managelS did not appr.ove these proP.osed changes for inc.orp.onm.on int.o the baseline f.or the pr.ogram, program n~anageIS did n.ot a(ijust the pr.ogr-.nn g cost and schedule baseline. By not acc.ounting f.or these and .otl;,ter changes t.o the pr.ogram s technical w.ork,milestone dates, and estimated casts in the pr.ogram s baseline since Match 1997, DOE has n.ot had baseline estimates .of all of the technical w.ork that it expected t.o

Page 18

0025

GAO-O2- JJll

Jfuclear Waste

~;)

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 14

c.omplete through sub~i.on .of a license applicati.on and the estimated schedule and cost to comple~ this W.ork.1I
When, Bechtel W3S contracted to manage the ' nuclear waStepr.ogram, .one was to document the remaining technical work that of its iilSt had to be completed to SUPP.ort the submission .of a lice~ applicatl.on

~1eI\ts

alid to estimate the time and cost to c.omplete this w.ork. The c.ontractor

revised, unofficial baseline f.or: the program sh.oWS th~ it will take' until January 2006 t.o complete essenti31 technical w.ork and submit an acceptable license applicati.on. DOE als.o estimated that completing the
remaining teehnical wQrk W.ould

add about $1.4 billi.on to the cumulative cost .of the program, bringing the total cast .of the Yucca M.ountain pr.oject' s porti.on .of the nucle3f waste program to $5. 5 billion . ~ AS n.oted ab.ove, DOE 'has n.ot ~ccepted Bechtel's pr.oPosed new baseline extending .out until January 2006. Instead, DOE is considering accepting, at present, Qnly that p.orti.on .of the baseline that Bechtel pr.oposed to c.omplete in fIScal year 2002.

Extension of License
Application Dat~ Will

AD. extensi.on .of the license app)jcati.on date to 2006 W.ould alm.ost certainly preclude DOE from achieving its l.ong-:-standing g.oal .of .opening a

likeJy PostpQne 2010
Repository Goal

repository in 2010. Acc.ording to DOE's May 2001 rep.ort.on the pr.ogram estimated cast, after submitting a license applicati.on in 2003, DOE estimates that it c.ould receive an authorizati.on t.o C.onstruct the rep.ository in 2006 and complete the constructi.on .of enough surface and undergrpund ' facilities to .open the repo,sitory in 2010, .or 7 years after submitting the license applicati.on. This 7 ~Year estimate from submittal .of the license'

ilpplicatl.on to the initial ,construction and .operati.on.ofthe repository assumes that NRC W.ould grant an auth.orization to C.onstruct the facility in 3 YeaIS, f.oil.owed by 4 YeaIS .of constructi.on. AsSuming these same
estimates of ti,me, subinitting a license applicati.on in 'Ja~lUary 2006 W.ould

extend the .opening date far the rep.osi~ry until about

2013.

1\ In 1998 and 2000. independent

cost and schedldt' Imie\\'S of the program w ere pedom\t'd

by DOE contractors. On the latter review, the contractOr concluded that DOe' s schedule

for licensing. constructing. and opening the repository by 2010 was optimiStic by about
2 years and that DOE's estimate of the total cost or th~ program over its l00-plus-year

lifetime--$58 billion (2000 doUars)-was understated by about $3 billion.

I! DOE estimated that the program cost, $4. 1 billion, on the basis of year~f-eXpenditure
dollars from the program s
January 2006incepl:ionin 1983

Uu-ough March 2002. TIle $5-5 biUion estimate
1983 through

for the license application IS based on year~f-expenditurt" dollars from

Page 19

0026

GA.o-O2- nn 'Nuclear Waste

:./ ," ,, ' ' ,, '' ~;~
:.. ' ,

' ' " ,"' , ' ' ,

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 11 of 14

, f

FurthermQre, .opening the repository in 2013 may be questionable far several reas.ons. FiISt, a reposit.ory at Yucca M.ountain w.ould be a first-ofkind facility, meaning that any schedule projecti.ons may be .optimistic.
DO E has deferred its .original target date for .opening a repository from ' 1998tQ 2000 to 2010. Sec.ond, alth.ol1gI1 the Nuclear Waste P.oliq Act states that NRC has 3 years to decide an a cQnstroctlQn license, a fQurth year may be added if NRC certifies that it is necessaty.; Third, the 4-year time

period ~.or construction that DO W s current schedule allQ\:VS frQm the ~tiance .of a CQnstructi.oJ,\ ' auth.orizati.on to the 9perting of the repository
may be too , shQrt. Far example, a cQnt:ractor hired by DOE'

independently review the estim8.t~ costs and sc~eduJe far the nuclear waste pr.ogram reported that the '4-year cQnstructi.on periOd was too
.optimistic and rec.ommende9 that the constructi.o~ phase be extended by a year-and.,.a~half. l; Bechtf~l anticipates a 5-year peri.od .of cQnstructi.on between the ,receipt .of a constroctiQn authQrizatiQll from NRC to the .opening .of th~ repQsitory. Thus , .on the bases .of a 4-year liCensing periQd

to

te~ t.o .open until ab.out 2015 if DOE dQes nQt apply f.or a license until
January 2006.

and a 5-year peri.od f.or initial CQnstructi.on, the rep.ository might nQt be '

Finally, these simple projecti.ons d.o n.ot acC.oUl-tt fQr apy .other fact.ors that eQuid adversely affect ibis 7- t.o 9-year schedule far licensing; constructing,
and opening the rep.ository. Annual appr.opriations fQr the recent YeaIS have been less than $400 milli.on. In cQntrast, aCc.ording tQ DOE, it needs between $750 !"ilIiorito $1.5 billi.on in annual approprlatiQns during most .of the 7- to 9-year licensing aqd constnictiQn periQd in .order to .open the repositQry .on that schedule. fu its August 2001 repoI:t.on alternative means for finan~ and managing the program, DOE stated that lmless the pr.ograiu s funding is increased, the budget might becQme the "detennining fact.or" wheth~r DOE will be able to accept wastes in

prQ~

2010.'4

t; See

Independent C.o.~

&tilnale

Rcttj~f) Cycle

oJ the CifJUian Radiooctive Co:;t

WaMe

Management.

mgmm, 2001 Total System Life H See 111ernatu!e Moolls

(Jan. 2001).
Managing

oj Financing and

the CiviLian Radioat".tit'C Waste

Managetru.!ll-l Progl11l1l-

(DOEIR\V~546, Aug. 2001).

Page 20

0027

GAO-OZ- l'l

'"Nude&-

Waste

.. ) ~:"'-'

, '

,'

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 12 of 14

DOE Is Reviewing

Alternative Ways to Accept
Wastes in 2010

Because .of the uncertainty .of achieving the 2010 goal fQr .opening the Yucca MQuntain repository, DOE is examining alternative apprQaches that w.ould permit it tQ meet the gQaL In May 2001 , DOE released a report QI:l PQtential Qpti.ons f.or c.onstructing and .operating the repository, It; It is als.o sporis.orii\g a NatiQnal Research Colmcii study on possible approaches to,
devel.oping a repQsitory in stages .over al.onger duration.

DOE' s M~y repo,rt evaluates a range .of approaches to develQping and

.operating the repository system and strategies fQr implementing these
substantially higher.appropriati.ons needed' toopen the repository as planned, DOE examined appr9aches tlu!J; might pem1it it t;() begin at the repQsit.ory site in 2010 while spreading .out the accepting cQnstrnctiQn .of repository facilities .over a IQng~ time peri.od. The study re(;Qmmended devel.oping the repQsitory .oR a ~odular basis, separating , , the rate .or accepting wastes at the repository site from tile rate of.waste emplacement in the \mdergrQund disp.osal areas by relying on the surface
approaches. FQr example, to reduce'the
un~rolinties of receiving

w~

storage .of received wastes until the capacity t.o mQve wastes into the rep.ository has been increased. For. exainple, relatively m.odest-sized

Surface facilities to handle wastes c.ould be expanded later t.o handle larger volumes .of waste. Such a modular appr.oach, acc.ording to the study results, would permit partial c.onstrocti.on aIld linUted waste emplacement in the repQsitory, at lower than earlier estimated annual CQSts , in adv;mc~
of the m.or~ c.ostiy c.onstructiQn .of the facility as .originally planned. Also by implementing a modular approach, DOE WQuld be capable .of acceptiJ:\g

wastes at therep.ository earlier than ifit cOnstructed the repository described in d.ocuments, sucI\' as the Science and Engineering RepQrt that
the Secretary WQuld use to SUPPQrt a site recQmmendatiQn.

In additi.on, DOE has c.ontracted with the Nati.onaI Research C.ouncil to prQvide recQmmendati.ons .on design and .operating strategies for devel.oping a ge.olQgic repository in stages , which is t.o include reviewing DOE' s ffiQdular apprQach. The C.ouncil is addressing such issues as the
. technical, pQlicy, and societal objectives and risks fQr devel.oping a staged

rep.ository;

CRWAIS Modular De.~ignlCoIIStt1ldiO'll alia Operation Optimls RqlOt't (DOFJOCRWM. TDR-CRW-MD-OOOOO2, Rev. 00, May 2001).

I~ See

i'age 21

0028

GAQ-O2-1M filucle.ai Wl'Ste

',

..
Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM Document 315-4 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 13 of 14

effects.of devel.oping a staged repository .on the safety and security .of the facility and the effects .on the cost and public acceptance .of such a facility;

and

strategies far developing a staged system including the design, CQnstJ.Ucti.on, Qperati.on, and clOSing of such a facilio/.
The Co~cil

expectS, to publish interim and final reparts .on the study In

about March '2002 and December 2002, respectively. '

fu part, DOE's desire to meet th~ 2010 g.oal is linked to th~ CQurt decisi.o~ that the, Nuclear Waste PQlicy Act; as implemented by DOE' s contracts with .owners .of c.ommerciai spent (uel, obligated DOE to begin acc~pting spent fuel from contract hQldel.'S nQt"later than January 31, 1998, .or be held
liable (.or damages. Courts are Currently assessing the ~oUlit .of damages of spentJuel disp.osal CQutracts. Estimates of p.otentiaI damages far the estimated 12-year delay frQffi 1998 to 2010 range wideiy frOlll the Department's estimate of $2 billi.on t.o$3 billion to the nuclear industry's estimate.of at least $50 biili.on. The damage estimates ate based in part on t~1e expeCtati911that DOE w.ould begin accepting spent fuel.fr.om c.ohf.ract"h.oldelS in 2010. The actual dan13ges c.ould be higher.or IQwer, depending .on when DOE begins accepting spent

that DOE must pay to holden;

;1)

fuel
Conclusions
site rec.onmlendati.on

fu additiQn to studyit1gthe Yucca Mountainsite, DOE is taking the .other steps, such as public hearings and .obtaining NRC' s sufficiency c.omments, that are required fQr. the Secretary tQ ~lake a site recQmmendatlQn in the near futUre. M3king a site rec.ommendatiQn at this tin~e. hQwever, maybe preniatllre. Under the Nuclear WaSte PQlicy Act and DOE's siting guidelines, a site rec.ommendatiQn and a lice~e application will need t.o
prQCess with specific time frames that requires DOE to submit a license applicati.on to NRC within ab.out 5 to 8 mQnths after the Presiden~ makes a
tQ

based.on essentiallythe$8ffie data. Furtherm.ore, the act lays .out a

the Congress. DOE' s

c.ontnct.orestimatesthat it,

will nQt have an .of the additi.onal illf.ormanQn that NRC has said. will needed fQr an acceptable license applicati.on fQr anQther 4 years. Waiting until DOE is cI.oser to submitting a license application f.or the additiQnal

applicatiQn that is acceptable to NRC within the time frames set .out in ,the law, and to be ablet.o better respond to questi.orts and challenges that may
emanate fr.om the statutory review process subsequent t.o

inf.ormati.on w.ould put DOE in a posiliQIi to be able to submit a license

rccQmInendati.on.

the President's

Page 22

0029

GA.o-O2. 11Jl '"Nuclear Waste

Case 1:98-cv-00154-JFM

Document 315-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 14 of 14

Another benefit .of waiting far the additi.onal technical inf.ormati.on is that the repositQry's design and develQpment schedule described in the documents that support a site rec.ommendatiQn may nQt describe the

, d~clibe s~ce and lmdergr.oUJid facilities that DOE w.ouid design and
build.on a schedule permitti~g it to .open the repository in 2O10. 1'his schedule, hQwever, is unrealistic if .one assumes that DOE's existing prelicensing ~d cQnstruction time frames c.ontlnuetQ bevaJid ,TlUs
uncerl;ainty is cQmp.ounded by questi.ons ab.out whether WE can .obtain: the increases in annual, fuAding required tQ meet its schedule. On the .other , a CQlnpelling incentive exists t.o .open the repository, in 2010 because DOE is liable fQr dan~de8", in am.ounts not yet detenniiled by the courts

facilities that DOE w.ould actually devel.op. TheSe d.ocuments generally

far n.ot beginning to accept utilities' spent fuel by 1998. The damage ~Qunts win in vart be based .on when D9E Can begin to ac~eptand , deliver spent fuel to the rep.ository. FQr these reasons, DOE is explQring altemativ~ approaches to devei.oping a repository, such as initially storing
spent fuel at the repositoo/ site befQre c.onstructing lmdergr:ound disposal "facilities that could still enable it to accept spent fuel by 2010. ThUs, defening a site rec.ommendati.on until DOE has substantially completed

tlw remaining technical work needed f.or an acceptable license applicati.on, w.ol1ld alsQ eoable DOE to cQmplete its c.onsiderati.on .of alternative approaches t.odevel.oping a rep.ositoiy at Yucca Mountaiu. DOE c.ould then
~nsure that the site rec.ommendatiQn is based. .on the appr.oachthat the Department intends tQ f.oli.ow. This w.ouid e~le DOE to devel.op the , estim~d schedule to design and build the preferred appr.oach and ~timate its C9st. iricluding the annual funding requiren1ents , as part .of the , inf.orinatiQll.on which to make a site rec.ommendatiQn.

POE needs to reestablisl~abaseline fQr the nuclear waste prQgram that

acc.ouuts fQr all .ofthe Qllt:s~ding technical w.ork neededt.o prepare an acceptable license applicatiQn and the estimated sChedule and c.ost t.o
achieve this milestone. In c.oI\iunctiQn with reestablishing a baseline far the program, DOE needs t.o resume using the baseline as a tQ.oI far managing the prQgram, hi acc.ordance with the Department's p.olicies and procedures fQr managing maj.or projects.

Recommendations for Executive Action

TQ ensure that DOE will be prepared t.o submit an acceptable license'
appJ,icati.onwithin the timeframes set .out in the Nuclear Waste P.olicy Act, the Secret:ary .of Energy sh.ould CQnsider (1) deferring a site

recommendati.on until it can meet the express statutory time framesthat are triggered by a site rec.ommendati.on by the PresIdent t.o the CQngress and (2)including the results .of DOE' s.ong.oing technical w.ork for NRC and

Page 2-'J

0010

GA.o-O2. 191 ,Nucl~.ar Waste