Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 1 of 11
DE83 014080
Jun. 1981
S. DepartnMnt of Energy
DOE/S-0020
OffIce of the Secretary
Washington, D.
Nucle.r Waate Policy Act ProJect Office
' 20585
Report on
Fi'
of
"ancing
the
mmercial
. DispOS8'1
Co'
Spent
Waste
Nuclea' Fuel and Processed
High-
Level Radioactive
Robert I. Benny William M. Sprecher
Nuclear Waste Policy Act Project Office
JlPlUI1U/cEO 81
INFORMA nON SERVICE
v.s OIPAJlMEIIT or COMll(lt(
NATIONAL TECHNICAL
srtltlGrlHO, VA,
22161
United Departl11ent of Energy
States
02024
OCR
P A- 1777P.O
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 2 of 11
:3.
REFERENCE CASE
Assumptions
The key assumptions used to estimate and project life-cycle program posts under the reference case are listed in Table 3These assumptions apply to either of t~o options: a) spent fuel disposal; or b) reprocessing waste disposal. The assumptions VI.ere developed in response to program changes occuring since the last DOE report on di$posal fees published in October
1980.
facility Schedule and Materlal F lows
. generation,. and spent
198:3- 2014.
fuel discharges between 'the years prepar~d by EIA and represent a moderately high growth pattern for nuclear energy. EIA' s projections are used . in this report. because the agency Is responsible for developing comprehensive and. objective data.
Table :3- 2 depicts installed nuplear capacity growth , electricity
. These estimates were
EIA'
authoritative source of information
regarding, energy programs. Obviously, however, the proj ections used in t~is report are
s data are widely used and are considered as ~n
subject to revision and refinement. Changes
be analyzed in subseq~ent reports. '
in projections will
It is assumed that . each of the two geologic reposit~ries will begin receiving either spent fuel discharge or reprocessing Each repository has a waste in 1998 and 2002, respecti design receipt rate of 3, 000 metric tons (MY) a year , although a receiving rate of 1, 800 MY annually is assumed for the first five years. The assumed material flows into the two repositories are shown i~ Table 3-
yely.
If the decision were made within the next two or three years by private interests to reprocess the spent fuel discharge, two reprocessing plants with separate annual capacities of 1, 500 MY could be constructed to. handle projected requirements. Based . on a relatively optimistic schedule, the first one would begin operation by about 1989, followed by a second plant in ' the year 2000. ' Each plant would reprocess 500 MT in th6 initial year of . operation, achi~ving design ~apacity within two years after Additional reprocessing facilities could be constructed as needed. The ~osts of solidifying reprocessing waste f6r ultimate g~ologic disposal are not included in the Such costs are reference case described in this
start-~p.
report. estimated to be $8 .per kilogram.
02025
OCR
PA- 177771U
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 3 of 11
~9, TABLE 3KEY REfERENCE CASE ASSUMPTIONS
Number of geologic repositories - 2.
Repository design cap~city - 72, 000 metric tons
(MT) each
MT per yeal. , Next 21 years ' at
,4.
Repository ~
design receipt rates ~ fir.st
5 years at 1, 800
3, 000 MT per year.
Waste types for disposal - Commercial hIgh- level waste (CHlW) .
- Transuranic contaminated waste (TRU). Spent Fuel (-Sf).
,Waste age
10 years (but a minimum of 5 years is
required) .
~aste packages - Long- lived "Westinghouse Pa6kage" for CHLW and Sf (not end f ittlngs or intermediate level waste).
at' reactor)
(T icode- 12
SF disassembly at repository (assumes no pre- disassembly and repackaging using the long- lived
)
package.
SF and CHLW packaging at the rep, 11th in-walled" package. - TAU (100 nanocuI"ies/gram) in a , TRU' incinerated for volume reductlon~
osltory. '
~aste emplacement - Borehole for SF and High Level Waste
- No hole liners. - Commingling of TRU with either CHLW or SF.
(HLW).
:8.
RetrievabJlity - Maintained for 50 years from date of
~mpl acement of first waste package.
- Early b~ckfllling not precluded (5 - Retrieval costs ale not included.
: Geologic medium - Salt or Hard- Rock.
years).
10. No monitored retrievable storage (MRS).
. 11.
to the
Transportation -
~ssumptions. )
*1
(Note:
From the reprocessing plant and/or reactor geologic repository (1, 500 mile average trip). See Appendix B. for additional transportation
Section 114 of the Act limits the emplacement of waste In the first repository to 70, 000 MY until such time as a second repository is in operation.
OCR
02026
P A- 177772
..
. .
.... ,.... ......, .....,...'.;: , . :;~; . :~\' ;," ' ... : ...
,' ,., " . . .. .
....:..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 4 of 11
PNl-4S13
r::
UC..
l~N"
"1.. 0;... ~'Ii;,
~:!r.-- ~513
:1r.1'
00')('111)
FISCAL IMPliCATIONS
OFA 1-MllL/kWh
WASTE MANAGfMEKT FEE
L. Engel
M.
K. Whi te
December 1982
Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract OE- AC06- 76RlO 1830
Pacific Northwest Laboratory R1chtand. Wash1 ngton 99352
02027
D A ") -1 ~~")
Q
",
, ,
"'
;:::
:":~
~ :: ;;' . ;.. )~;::
,,
.,., -.-.
"-------.Page 5 of 11
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
~-,- c'
Document 792-16
":;~:~tT:"""
Filed 04/16/2004
~~r;?:
1~. ~'C
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ~~~CRIPrION
In this an81ys1s. costs and revenues a~e project~d for s1t~ng.
constructing and oper4t1ng the ttrst two r.dfc~lct1Ye wlste
reposttort!s. It
is assumed that each repository will begin receiving waste ,trOll 7?OOOmetrtc
tons (MT) of spent fuel in 1998 and 2002. respectively.
80th h1ghQevel waste
(HUI) and transuranic (TRU) waste tsassumed emplaced in the rdpos1tory. Two
waste 'onn options. spent fuel and reprocessing wastes. are considered.
In the follow1ng
setHons the nuclear forecast , and waste generation
assumpthuis.
tht waste disposal schedule for the two repositories, and the
reference cost data used in this
al\Ilys's are discussed.
1 NUCLEAR ENERGY AND WASTE GENERATION PROJECTIONS
The installed nuclear capacity and energy generation forecast for this
analY$t$ is based on a rccentmodif1catton (DOE/RL- 82-1) of the last Energy
Information Administration forecast. (DOE/EIA-
031S). This
forecast predicts
165 GWe 1nstal1ed capacity b; the year '20aO. and 285 GWe instilled capacity by
the year 2020. Thenuc1ear ,generation capacity. spent fuel dhcharge. ' and
energy generation for this scenario are shown in Tab'e 4.
This table
contains daU
through, the year 20U. when
acumuhthe tota' of 144. 000 MTof
fuel.
fue' w111 be discharged. This fue1. or waste resu1t'ng from this ,
assumed to f111 the first two repositories.
Table 4. 2
shows the reprocessing scheduJe assumed
tn ttle analysis when
reproc~sstngwaste is the reference waste fona. Four reprocessing plants are
required to reprocess the 144. 000 NT of spent fuel.
REPOSITORY MASS FLOWS
The des t gn recei pt and
d1sposa' rate of each repel tory t s 3000 nte tric
tons heavy metal (HTHM) (spent fuel or equivalent reprocessing waste) per
year. A reduced receiving rate of 1800 HTHM per year was assumed for the
t;rst ftve years of operatfon. Each repository hila total e;apactty of 12. 000 '
HTHH. The IllaSS flows for
the fi..U two repositories ts shown an Table 4.
"-i
02028
PA- 216647
-_. -Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
_
Filed 04/16/2004
, ( ,
Document 792-16
Page 6 of 11
ONI-3 Distribution Category UCI:'
Projected Costs for Mined Geologic Repositories of Commercial Nuclear Wastes forD;
isposal
Technical Report
December 1982
John D. Waddell
David G. Dippold
Thomas
I. McSweeney
Engineering
Office Economics Program Office of NWTS Integration
Columbus, OH 43201
This report was prepar~d by the Engineering Economics Program Office, Office of NWTS Integration, Management Division, und~rContract No. DE-AC06-76- RlO1830-0NI with the U. Project Battelle of NWTS Integration. Office Department of Energy. This contract was administered by the Battelle
02029
PNL- O20-0483
"""
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 7 of 11
Underground Workings/Rock Handling
This includes the costs of
main corridors. any test
The transfer, storage,
excavating and backfilling the shaft pillar zone, the'
areas, the service shaft, and ventilation passageways.
and disposal of all excess rock from all sources are also included.
Venti lati on
This includes the costs of vent
i1 ati on struc-
tures, mechanical systems, ventilation shafts, and flow paths.
Support and Utilities
This includes the costs of all other
mai ntenance t
repository systems. Sped
fi cally,
adnri ni strat ion ,
warehouse,
sewag~ treatment, pump houses, steam generation, cooling towers, holding ponds, storage tanks, visitors ' center, substation, and standby power systems
are included.
Cost Category Definitions:
Speci al Terms
Waste Packa
Related Costs: Although not specifically shown, costs
can, of course, be aggregated in a variety of other ways.
waste package-related costs can be interpreted to
For instance, total
i ncl ude all of the waste
preparation system costs plus all of the waste handli
system costs. These
ngand emplacement subare categories which are di rectly affected by changes in
the waste package design. Categories ~ich are indirectly affected, e.go, Waste Package- Related ventilation, would not be included as part of the "
, Costs
" in this interpretation of terms.
package econonri cs.
tion of Waste Isolation
This concept of waste package-related costs is often employed in
dfscussi ons of waste
Descri
stem " Cases
General Description
In thi s report, estimates are prepared for ei ght " cases" whi ch
cover
, four medi a (domed salt,
bedded salt, tuff, and granite) and two waste types
~spent fuel and reprocess; ng
waste). The
four " spent
fuel" cases; nclude the
02030
PNL- O20-0509
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 8 of 11
costs of prepari
ng the spent rue 1
for di sposa 1, i. e., di sassemb ly and pack-
aging. The four reprocessing waste cases include the costs of packaging the
HLW glass, the cladding hulls, and the other TRU waste but not the costs of
liquid waste soli.dification. In all cases, unless otherwise noted, TRU wastes
are packaged in thin-walled (approximately 1 em thick) packages and the packages conmringled with the high-
level wastes.
MT of spent
For all cases, repository capacity is taken to be 72' 000 MT of spent
fuel or the equi
valent waste produced from reprocessi n9 72, 000
fuel. The receipt rate is 1, 800 HT/yr equivalent for the first five years and
000 MT/yr equivalent for the next 21 years.
10n9- 11
vi!d
borehole packages described in the
The reference packages are , the (4~5L reports by Westinghouse
hori.zons have not been selected, these esti mates assume a generi c si te wi th the repository fact 1 i ti es about 2, 000 feet underground. Similarly, these estimates do not reflect differences in
Since specific sit~s and repository
the requi rements for ai r condi ti oni ng, foundations~ regi ona1 labor other site-spe,cific factors. , However, the estimates do reflect an
Tuff may also requi re some additional offsite improvements.
rates, or
increase in
offsite improvements for bedded salt as compared with the other three media.
However, these
~re not included in the current estimates.
The key parameters whi ch
'Shown in Table 7.
descri be the
emplacement confi gurati ons are
The di fferences are
due mai n ly to differences in strength
and thermal properties !lOOng the host roc ks considered. Because the granite designs have not been completed, the tuff configuration was used as a substi-
tute for granite. This substitution is considered acceptable since the ther/1181 conductivity for granite is higher than that for tuff (2. 56 versu~ 1.85
Wfm.C
~ 100 C). This assumption somewhat penalizes the granite in terms of
the larger packages designed by
, mining costs, but does allow the use of Westinghouse , for estimating purposes.
The contents of the assumed repositories are shown in Table 8.
' Note
that the packages for end fittings, cladding, and TRU account for
asignifi-
cant fraction of the total number of packages.
Since specific construction schedules have not been developed, the
same construction schedule is used for all cases. The , costs of land and land
ri ghts are projected to be incurred duri ng
the 19805. The remai ni ng capi
ta 1
PNL- O20-051 0
02031
TABLE 7. EMPLACEMENT CONFIGURATIONS USED AS THE
BASIS FOR
THE, COST ESTIMATES
Package
Package Outside
Boreho 1 e
Dimensions
Diameter X Length
Room Hei
Room Width
meters
Room , Spacing
Pi tch
Contents
(MT of fuel)*
meters
21.
' 2.
meters
10.
meters
Domed & Bedded Salt/Spent Fuel
61 x 4.
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Domed & Bedded Salt/End Fittings
Tuff/Spent Fuel
48 x 4. 61 x 4.
NfA
Tuff/End Fi tti
The va 1 ues for tuff were used
ngs
2 4. 0 0 2 4.~ 2 4.
27. 25. 25.
48x4.
23.
0 . 152. 0 9. 4 . 31 0 2. 0 . 15
475 x 3.
NfA
Gran; te
I\)
.j:I.
Domed & Bedded Sa 1 t/HLW , G1 ass
Domed & Bedded
Sa 1 tlCl
addi ng
Document 792-16
Waste
23.
76 x 3.
"NfA
Domed & Bedded
Salt/Remote
25.
25,.
andl ed TRU
Tuff/HLW Glass
475 x 3. 38 '
Tuff/Cladding
Waste
76 x 3.
NfA
Tuff
Remote
he values for tuff were used
Filed 04/16/2004
Handled TRU
Gran ; te
"'d
*This, is the weight of the fuel in the spent fuel.
For, HLW glass this is the weight of the spent fuel which
was reprocessed which generated .the
waste in the glass.
Page 9 of 11
. **Two rows per room.
...
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 10 of 11
TABLE 8. CONTENTS OF THE 72, 000 MTU(a) REPOSITORIES USED
AS A BASIS FOR THE COST ESTIMATES
Contents of a
S; ngle Package
Number of Packa~es
Yo 1 ume
, ?~ 1 .r~~
Reprocess; ng Waste Repositories
HLW Glass
31, 560 66, 000
19 m
, Claddi ng
Remote.Handl
Spent Fuel Repos;
~d TRU
31 ,
3 J\.to(... Ct 3
tor; es
Fuel P;
24, 374
010
D1 sassemb led Spent
57m
End F;tt;
ngs
68m
(a) MTU = metric tons of uranium.
02033 PNL-
O20-0512
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-16
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 11 of 11
construction costs are assumed distributed over a six-year
period as follows:
,
5, 15, 20 , 22. 23, 15 percent per year. Operations ~osts are assumed 100 wi i1 percent vari able on a $/MTU basis. Thi s is not totally accurate"
but
introduce only insignificant errors compared to other uncertainties. Decom-
missioning is assumed distributed over a five-year period as follows: 10, 15,
25, 30, 20 percent per year.
Case 82-66:
Domed Salt/Spent Fue1*
The basi s for capital construction cost estimatesi s described
first, followed by operations cost estimates and decommissioning estimates.
The estimates are summarized in Table
ital Construction Subtotals'
Waste Pre arati on S stem. The waste package component costs !orall package types are ass; gned ~nti rely to operati ansa The spent fuel waste package desi gns and costs are based upon Westi nghouse data (4). The assenb1y facility costs are based upon a design by Kaiser Engineers(13L The Kaiser
design accommodates 3, 300 MTU per year which is close to the 3, 000
MTUper
year assumed for thi s study. Additi ona1 costs have been added to the esti mate
to account for t"acilities for disassenbly and close packing of the spent fuel,
an activity not included in the Kaiser design. After
by E. R. Johnson Associ
reviewing data developed
ates i n. the;
r draft assessment of impacts of spent fuel
disassembly alternatives on the nuclear waste iso
lation system, it was
estimated that the disassenbly facility would increase the costs by 44 million
dollars over the Kaiser estimate.
Site. The site costs are very dependent upon the exact location.
Since this location is not currently known, the costs for onsite improvements
are based on the NWTSRl values and are assigned to all cases. The land and
land rights estimate of 41 million dollars is assigned to salt and granite
cases (the tuff site ;s on government-owned
land). Offsite
improvements of
Case " designations refer to the sequence in which certain calculations were carried and are of significance only to the~uthors.
02034
PNL-O20-0513