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

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