Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-15
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 1 of 11
nUCLEAR WASTE 'FUND FEE ADEQUACY I
AN ASSESSMEnT
July 1984
S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERG~
OFFICE orc IVIUAN RAIUOACTIVE WASTE
WASllmGTOI~, D. C.
MANAGEMEt'T
20585
OCR
:02014
P A- 17733H
:!!.~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 792-15 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 2 of 11
n~TRODUCTIOIl Arm
'l'h1a is the sec' I re?Ort .!/ or an annIJal series that evaluates whetber the r?" .. Jes collecl:-d from the waste disposal fees
.eBtablishe. ..,
. 'Sp.ction 302 f the nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425) Dre sufflcient to offset the Federal governraent ' 5 cos.ts for the t1isposalof commerchlly generated spent nuclear ruel (SNF) and high-level. radioactive waste. Nur.lear wastes produced from defense activities are not considered
in this report.
0 mill per
-0
The principal findintJs of this ye~r s analysis are noted below.
1tilowatt-hour (k.,hr) fee is The cu rrent 1. projected to produce revenues sufficient to offset total system H.fe cycle costs associatedwi. th the ca les ' specified l"tet" in the report, assumin() that the average annu-"l rate- of inflation does not exceed 2 to 3 percent.
Uigt.cr avc!l"Age annual rates
of inflation, or unanticipated real cost growth, would cause cumulative program costs to approach and then surpass cumulative revenues generated from the current 1. 0 mlll per kwhr fee.
Based on bn analysi8 of different inflAtion rates ~nd program cost growth projections discussed herein,. indexing of the . fee to correct for inflation would not need t obegin until 1985, at the earliest, ot"perhaps as
late (\$ the year 2000.
':hel" e . is substantial ,uncertainty about both the program cost and revenue projections. Ho~ever, more reliable data are expected to become available in the late 19808 ' as the prCXjt'aJI\ evolves froll its prGsent conceptual design
phase to . the engineering phase.
tha t
recommendation to raise the 1. 0 mill per kwhr fee before that time should be measured against the uncertainties
lienee, any.
attend the. present program.
BACJ(GROUND AltD l. eGAI. REOUIRE.1ENTS
The Act prescribed that the owners and Cje.. "rators
of commercially generated nuclear waste will pay the full costs of its disposal. The Act al~oesttlb1ished a Nuclear Waste Fund emiF) to ensure the full cost r~covery funding of a safe and environmentally acceptable program. This fund is composed of the revenue from an
OCR
\02015
PA- 177340
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-15
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 3 of 11
- 2 -
adju8table , tee .charged
quarterly for generated by commercial nucl~ar facilities be9innlng April 7, 1983, 8S well 8S a one-tirae fee, produce a total of $2. 3 billion, for nuclear waste produced prior ~o April 7, Revenues generated trom these two lources, 8. we.1l .a interest earnings accruing from the investment of Fund surpluses in U. S. '4'reasurysecurities, are deposited to the tMF, and disbursements are made as the program
aU electricity
1983.
uU..ted to
progresses.
ManagelHnt (OCRWH)
-8aaed on . the
resul'ts the adjusted, ifofnecessary.
The Act also created a new Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste under the u. s. Departnaent of Energy (DOC) to adainiater .. ~pUC' . oleprovisions of the legislation, including Section 302(aH that calls for an annual review of the adequacy of the wa8te disposal fees to' recover waste disposal program costs.
evaluation., the ongoing' fee
maybe
The analysis dlacu8sed' in this report examined both tho casts and
financing of the civilian n~clear waste management program described in noE s preliminary working draft Mission Plan 1983. However, the' H. ,slon Plan h as 81hce een revised ex'tenslvely in res ponse to nterna and PUbl ic commt: The. present= forlllal thf'. Hi,;slon Plan of Apt'! 1 1984
Dece~r
departs appreciably insevotal
draft of
ts.
tec
carrerated aspects
from the
'PaceMher version of the Plan i and the estimation of the costs associated with this revTiiCf progr:t:' hat' not been completed.
Thus, the findings offered in this repvrtshould be viewed as interim. Work is underway to publish a fee adequacy evaluation
report in January 1985 that will be consistent .with;
the
analysis reports.
inten
Mission Plan s to
that is to be aubraltted to the Congress. DOC ow the January publication date for all future fee
the versioJ\ of
HETHOOOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This evaluation of fee adequacy is based on the principle of -full-cost recovery- , which means that the Federal government should be reimbursed for all costs related to the waste disposal services it provides to the signatoties of DOE' s . Standard Contract for DhPD.i'tl of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or lJi9h-Lev~1 Radioactive Waste. The principle of full-cost recovery underlies the basic analytic approaches used by DOR in 1978, 1980 and 1983 to evaluate financing Methods suited to it Federally administered civIlian nuclear waste management program.
The general 1I'Iethodology employed in this year s report projects Nuclear Waste P'und cash flows and resulting balances basf!d on program costs and revenues, inctuuing interest earnings and ~xpenses. A 2 percent real interest rate was assumed. If the projected final Fund balance is estiraated to be post tive, then ~~e
OCR
102016
PA- 177341
. -
.'
Document 792-15 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
- 3 -
projected f insl Fund
converse would be true.
Spent fuel cumulative discharge through ~he year 2020
fee is judged adequate to ensure full cost recovery. If the balance is estimated to be negative, then the
'1'he principal assumptions used in this report to oroduce the ~eference case estimates are noted below
uraniurn(M'l'U)
Two
l34, 000
metric tons
. reposl lodes
Number of geologi~
0'
0'
Repository design cap~city
Repository receipt rate3
70, 000 MTU each
800 M'l'U/yearly for
and then 3, 000
HTU/year; y
the first five years,
thereafter.
Minim~m cooling time sin~e
10 years
ischarge ' of SpOt ' fuel accepted f(\t' disposal
Operational stArt-up dates for the repositories
First one in 1998 and, the second one in 2003
Several 81 ternative program ceases (i. e. sensit lvity cases ) w! _ also studied to determine the sensitivity of the refere~ce ' C~8e
assumptions for t~ese alternative cases diverge from the as8u~ptlons ' noted above with res~ct to: 1) the inclusion of a five year repository schedule deJayandconstruction of ~nitored retrIevable storage facilities to accomodate the spent fuel flowJ 2) both ~igher and lower program construction and operations costs arising from either unanticipated . technical difficulUes or the use of more efficien~ designsJand 3) lower nuclear growth projections resulting in declining revenue and SNF discharge
cost estimates to different progra~matieassumptlons. The
lorecasts.
The revenue projections used in this analysis were derived from estimates of gross electricity generatlonprepared In September 1983 by the u. s. Energy Information Administration (CIA). Three
nuclear growth scenarios are depicted in this report
1) The "Firm-Base" case assumes all reactors currently undec construction but less than 30 percent complete are cancelled, andna orders for new reactors arepJ.aced. The net effect is that when the reactors now more than 30 ' percent complete begin operation by about 1990, the number of nuclear power plants is stable for about 10 years,
OCR
102017
P A- 177342
;& -
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-15
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 5 of 11
and then declines to 4!ero in 2020 as plants are retired. 2) The -Low ' ca.e ~ake8 the same a88uRption~ about the completion of reacto~s now under constructi~n as in the " F1rm BaRe- case, but a180 aSBumcs a slow Increase in installed nul'.lear capacity through
c~Q'. clal nuclear .power ,grows
the yeftr 2020. ~. ) The " Hid" case aSsumes the Market share of
and 2020. EIA' s "H1gh- growth case ~as not included because , c.ho
the next two, decades appears highly unlikely-
aea moderate rate , resulting in an appr04. imate doubUnCJ of installed "uclear capacity between 1990
i_plied accelerated developmen".:
of comme,
rcial ' nuclearpawet'duting
The total system life cycle costs of the civilidu nuclear \faste management prOCjran analyzed in this rePvt't are organized into three major categories that retain the costing structure used in laet year s fee anaJ,ysis report. 'J'bese categories are: development and evaluation: 2) geologic repository construction, oper~tion., cl08ure and decommissioning I and 3)' transportation and
1)
systellls development. It' shouJd be noted, however,
that the cost 4stimates are based largely on conceptual designs, with definitive information still lacking in many areas. 'l'he estimat:.es \:111 be refined as new
lnformaUol becomes
sat t and tuf f) are being
available.
bedded salt, domed rocka for the first repository. For purposes of th:~ fee adequacy analvsis, granite 1s assumed to be the geologic meoium for the second repository.
ANALYSIS
This section of the repot" t discusse s both revenue and program cost per: projections and assesses the adequacy of the, current 1.
Four candidate geologic media (i.e. ,basalt, considered ,as host
kwhr fe~ to recover program costs.
7bl11ionl
0 mql
Cumulative revenues derived from the three EIA electricity generation cases discussed, in this report, based On the continuing application of the current fee, are as follows: 1) Firm-Dase case 2) Low-case - $26. 8 billion; and 3) Mid-case - $19.
$33. 3
dollars would also accrue to the Nuclear Waste Fund during those years when program revenues are expected to exceed program costs.
bill~on. Interest earnings amounting to several bi l1ion
LUe cycle costs a!\sociated with development and evaluation cover all the siting, testing, design development, re9ulatory and insti tutional activities relating to the two geologic repositories, monitored retrievable stora~e facilities, other facilities and the required transportation network. These CO&ts are estimated at $7. 6 billion, expressed in 1983 dollars.
OCR
02018
P A- 177343
~~'!'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
OOEiRW-OOO5
-------.---Document 792-15 Filed 04/16/2004
-- .---. --.-----,-------_.-. ._'---Page 6 of 11
J: ~.,.. . " 3 '3,~IT\"S
.\jlJ
Mission Plan
for the
Civilian Radioactive ~Vaste
Management Program
Volume Part Part Overview /I Information Required Policy Act of and
Current Program Plans
by the
Nuclear Waste
1982
June
1985
S. Depdrtment of Energy
Ofiice of
Civiltan Radioactil' t'
Waste Management
OCR
1)2019
08- 105274..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-15
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 7 of 11
of high-level waste and spent fuel) and. ~ccotdinolv. ep~A!i~~ in the Treasury of the Uni tad States a special Nuclear Waste Fund to be composed of the payments made by those using the services (Section tors
3021.
Committing the Federal Government to study monitored retrievable storage in parallel wlth geologlc repositories (Section 1411.
Providing for a federally owned and operated system of interimstorage facilities for no more than 1900 MTU of spent fuel from civilian reactors whose owners cannot reasonably provide adequate storage capacity at the reactor site (Section 131) and creating an Interim Storage Fund to make certain that those using the services will pay the full costs (Section 1361.
Setting out an extensive system of checks and balances through public lnvolvement, along with written consultation-and-cooperation (C&CI agreements. to ensure Federal accountability to, and communication with, States and affected Indian tribes (Section 117).
1. 3
POLICY GOALS AND PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Unprecedented technical and institutional challenges require resolution the Act are achieved. First, the public of must be convinced that the interests of the Nation are best served by consolidating the radioactive waste dispersed throughout the country in a limited number of geologic repositories designed for permanent disposal. The national interest must take precedence over parochial concerns. Next, the DOE must be able to achieve the tasks set forth in an unusually precise and complex schedule and to persuade the citizens of the country that the waste disposal program will be safe. efficient, and on schedule. Furthermore, the conflicting and competing interests that are mirrored by the tension between program schedule and technical certitude must be resolved. , Finally, the DOE must grapple with the contentious issues that often accompany a task as complex and enduring as its waste-management program while never wavering from its commitment to build and operate the required disposal facilities.
before the intent and the letter
The following policy goals guide the formulation and the implementation of the DOE' s program:
The protection of public health and safety and environmental acceptability are of paramount importance.
The program must be credible to the public by virtue of its integrity and technical excellence. The program must neither subsidize nor penalize nuclear power as an
energy source.
The program must be conducted in a cost-effective manner, with full cost recovery.
-6HQOOO5287
010 OCR
02020
08- 105297
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-15
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 8 of 11
Chapter 2 PROGRAM STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
t i ves. several stand out:
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the Act! put in place a comprehensive. complex set of activities for achieving the capability to dispose of the Nation s high-level radioactive waste. The strategy of the program is intended to provide maximum . assurance that the goals identified in Chapter 1. implementing the provisions of the Act. are met. Among these goals and objec-
The program must protect the health and safety of the public and the quality of the environment. The program must provide for the dissemination of the public and ensure opportunities for participation by the public and their representatives in order to achieve their confidence and
info~tion to
support.
The program must be conducted in a financially responsible. costeffective manner and on the basis of full cost recovery.
In accordance with the above goals. the program must vigorOUSly to begin accepting spent fuel and high-level waste for disposal no later than January 31. 1998. and to continue to dispose of the waste in a highly efficient manner consistent with the continued orderly operation of the Nation s nuclear
pursue the Act t s directive
power- generation plants.
The Act has provided a broad. flexible framework in which to conduct the necessary activities: it has authorized certain key facilities. set schedules and fees. articulated institutional interactions. provided the opportunity to analyze the desirability of enhancements to improve program perfo~nce. and recognized the need for flexibility and contingency planning in a large. complex. and controversial program that may span more than a century.
The strategy of the program is to ensure that the activities authorized by the Act are carried out in a vigorous manner: potentials for systemperformance improvements are analyzed and incorporated where useful. including requests for new Congressional authority as allowed by the Act; and contingency plans are identified and evaluated to provide maximum confidence that the program is prepared to adjust to meet the requirements of the Act notwithstanding uncertainties as to future Congressional authorization decisions and technical and institutional matters. The strategy can be described as a comprehensive system-development program through which any of three distinct plans can be successfully carried through to meet the requirements of the Act. In the discussions that follow in Sections 2. 2. 2. 3. and 2. 4. these plans are referred to as the " authorized plan. " the " improved-performance plan. " and contingency plans. Also discussed
-lSHQOOO5295
010 OCR
02020a
D B-
05305
(")
Table 2-:, Waste-Acceptante Sctledule--Autllorized S,.stCl4etric 'tons CUlUtat
0' urani~
(fCTU) per ,.ear)
, "N:t RellCl1:Uor"
S~t.Fu.1 ~.rationA
AMua 1
Se~ond ReDo~ I tory
Mi,tl-U"el '
Year
CU8llattve
Spent FUel
waste
SP*I1t fuel,
Total
'(&allathe
400 800
200'
C_lathe
Spent-Fuel Acceptance
SDen t-Fue1 8ac:lc1Ot
Pre 1998
"'8
400 400
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
40, 100 41, 000 46, '00
4',
'00
900
liDO 3800
SOOO
12, 000 55, 000
400 400
400
SI, 61, 410
SlOO
400 400 400 900 1800 3400 3400
2900 3000 3000 3000 3000 3100 nOD 3400
IIO
:tOio
:tOOO
)400
3400 3400 3400
:1400
31.0
400
:1000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
aool 4.00
4000
3000
4100
47"
81. 100
SO..
sooo
300 3000 3000
:1000
4100
68, 72, 700
'400
900 700 500
:aOO
400 aoo 200 100 900 900 900 12, 900, 16, 000 21. 600 26. 400
31. 20i
40, 100, 42. 600 45, 200 47, 800 49, 900 51, 100 51, 200 51. 500 51, 900 51, 800 51, 100 51, 000 50. 700
ODD
%010
1011 2012 2013
"00
'8, 700
900
90. 400 94, 500
102, 900
100 900 300 10, 700 14, 100 17 , 500 20, 900 Z4, :IIO 27, 700 11, 100 500 )7, 900'
41, 400 47, 400 53, 400 59, 400
.0, 400
49, 000 47, 100 45. 300 43. 500
4' ,aDo
Document 792-15
'07. 200
3000 3000
3'400
0'\
3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 1400
41, '00 44, 700 41, 100 51, 500
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
:1000
4200 4200 4300 4300 4500 4700 4700
3400
24110
10. 500 soo 16. 500 19. 500 22, 500 25, 500 28, 500 31. 500 34;500
37 . 500
20Z0
SODa
Zo:u.
1100
.900
3400
1100
111, 500 116. 000 120;700 125, 400 130, 100
3000
65, 400 71, 400 ' 77, 400 13, 400 19. 400 95, 400
40, 500
10; ,
400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
58, '00 61. 700 65, 100 6*. '00 70, 000
4:1, 500
SOO
'os. soo
'OI,
3000 '
SOO
111 .500
40. 100, 38, 600 17, 300 36, 000 34. 900 28, 900 24, 800 21, 100
111'. aoo
900 1800 1800 1000 1800 2400 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 '000' 3000
1000
49, 500 52, 500
)000
15', aoo
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
1000
ZOZ7
114, 500 117, 500 120, 500
12, 800
ZOZI
In, SOo
3000 3000 3000 800
ZOZ9
2030
Filed 04/16/2004
203t
SS, 500 58, 500 61. S00 64, 500 67, 500 68. 300
126. 500 129. 500 130. 300
Stat.,~ and thO! World, OOUtIA 0438(14), lIovMber 1984.
800 800 800 aoo
diScha,...
"Ijata 'rOII
fr- _-'SSi~
".....reial .~I.ar p_r "84'
""' of def_-
PrClsoec:ts 'Dr t~ United
Includes
htgh-'tYel waste 'rllf/l the West defense acthltles and for hlth- 1.vel , waste ApprOxilll8te IilUte-.ec8lltance rates _tl~t~, ons , uranhll (Krlls) on a curie-equivalent basis. Direct Quantities halO. been . nonulhed. to,(, QIII,.W) and co.-rcial hlgh-,eyel waste (CHLW) resulted from .the reprocesSIng of Yaney Dell!nstra,tlon '",e1 waste with spent rlMl Is not ~",valent, Mc&YSe de,ense 1It",waste equals 800 canlst!lrs. ,Actual acceptance rates are to "'IIe,ollated between Defense Programs ex8111118. ..~
'roj~t.
'r- at_Ic _r,y
c_rc'a1
c~ar'son
spent IIMI, In 1M an4 the Office 0' CtvtHan Racltoacthe Waste
Page 9 of 11
..Jo.
first
Thefirst rellOs\toOl currentl,. is c..Slgned to ...,in operation In two phases. This ex"",'e shows the acceptance of OHLW and recltllt rate. pltase 1IIhen, tile sec~phase reaches its ..,.,iU20, . ' For , waste created after 2020. The Enerl,. Info...tton~lntstratton proJe'c:ts spent-fue1..oeneratlon only' throufh the year.
reactors; OOt.
_'aclttt
...".,-..tinthe
CitLW In the
nther the
by e..ten41O, the
CJ1
capacity 0' the First two repositories could be Increased b,. the year 2022, Additiona1 D"tW can be a~cOfmlDdated or additional repositorieS could bebultt. , an4 CHLW ...1&c'"
-10.
The IXIIIIiIIlt s/1OW$ a total 0' IDiO IfTU of DHLW IIHLW In tile secQnd operatIon of the first repository.
repository, or constMtlttt additional rep,osltorles.
as IndIcated In footnott 0
(") ...
.....
('"
"'.
",
"',
::0
Tntl 2-3.
Wastt-Acclptance Schedu1e--Improved-,erformance SyStem
(Metric tons of Iiran1la (1fTU)
per "ear)
Year
SoetIt I'_1 c.......tt~
Amwa 1
Cl8u1au..
Acceptance
HIS
I't"t ~DtI~Horv
Inventor,,
ItI$
Tota1
HIS
Sf fl"O8
Ktth-Llvet
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
*-ste
C~tat1Ye
Se~/)ftd ~.DD~ttDry
C~'ath.
Tota'*-st.
Spent flll1 CIaI1attve
Ac:cept&ftCe
Spent-fuel Spent-fuel
Back1o.
're 1998
1"8
3000.
400,
900 400 400
2900
40, 100 41. 000
2200 3000
SOOO
SOlO
37. 900 37, aoo
:J7 . 800
SoOO
3000
000 49. 000 12, 000 5S, OOO
3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
SlOO
37 . 100
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
noo
68, &DO 72, 100
400 81, tOo
SlOO
ZOOS
S8, tOO 61, 400
800
37. 37. 800
400 800 200 100 900 300 10, 700 14. 100
2006 2001 2008 2009 2010
400
Document 792-15
410.
400
400
3410 3100 4100 4700 4500 4500 4000
400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
1800 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400
17, 5110 20, 900 24, 300 27. 700
31",
to , 400 94, 500
. 400
900 1800 1800 1800 1100
900 700 500 300
38, 200 18. 600 31. 500
:J7, 900
3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
JOOO
2400 3000
' 3000
lOO
37 . 800 37 . 100 37 , 400
:J7. loa 21. 700
10, 500 13, 500 16, 500 19, 500
IOO
I',)
'000
3000 3000 2100
400 400 400 900 1800 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1000 3000
200 200 200 11. 200 14, 200 11, 200 20. 200 23, 200 200 30. 100 34, 900 39, 700 44. 500 49, 300 54, 700 60. 700 66, 700
4200 4200 4100 4200 4100 4700 4700 4900
98, 700 102, 900 107 ,200 111, 500 116, 000 120, 125, 400
200 800 400 10, 000 12, too 13, )00 13, 300 13, 300 13, 300 13. 300 13 , 300 13, 300 13, 300 13, 300 13, 300" 13, 300 13, 300 13, 300 13, 300 13, 300 13, 100 10, 100
no, )to
100 100
1, too
34, 500 37, 900 41, 300 44, 700 48, 100 51, 500 ' 54, 900 58, 300
, 71. 700 84. 700
72, '00
3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 1100
400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400
3400 3400 ' 3400 3400 3400 3400 1400 3400 3400 3400 3400 1500
'5,
700
100 500
93. 500
70, 000
'0, 500
32, 000 30. 200 28, 500 2'. 800 25. 500
2000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000 3000
:sODa
22, 500 25, 500 , 28, 500 31, 500 34, 500 37, 500 40, 500 43, 500
Soo
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 202* 2024 2025 8000
102, 500 105. 500 loe. soo
3000 3000 3000 3000
JOOO
99, 500
500
27. 200 2a, 900
30 , aDo 2? , 800
Filed 04/16/2004
202'
'00
24 , aDo 21. 100 114 500
18, 800 15, 100
49. 800 52, 500 55. 500 58, 500
12 , aoo
2027 2028 2029 2030
'1,
3000 100
500
64 .500
2031
61 ;500 300
117, 500 120i500 123, 500 12ft, 500 129, 500 130, 300
Uor1d , DO~/nA 0438(84), NOnwlber 1984.
800 800 100
loa
dec_1ss1one.1 ru.c:tors.
"oata fr."",.... II_... 1984
~-...,t.,
Pro"bP"h 'or tho. UnttPd SUt~~ .nd th.
Page 10 of 11
'ac1"t" 15 ' to "Iell a constant aceilitanee the f1rst rellosttor" as fast as , ~pent'ue1. The HIS 'ac111t" 101111 stOlliccept1nt,5j1eiit fuel , ioinen'rate ,and d1sc:har,e torn1 the ftrst the First reposItory can .c~ept 1ts 1nventor" wt11 See footnotes b and c in Table 2-2. rePOsttOl:1.
'The "-IS
ass~
.Includes disChar,e rrOlll
CJ1
;--I'
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Document 792-15
Filed 04/16/2004
Page 11 of 11
both repositories, or , two
fense high- level
accept beginning in 1996 with the comthe Quantities of waste the , DOE pletion of an integral MRS facility is presented in Table 2-3. This sched~ ule assUllles that one HRS facility services the first repository. Other scenarios 'are possible. such as a large r MRS facility servicing part or:' all of
HRS, facilities
c~ld
servicing two repositories.
Included in Tables 2-2 and 2-3 are possible acceptance schedules for dewaste (DHLW) produced in national defense proq. rams and com, mercial high- level waste (CHLW) from the West Valley Demonstration Project. These schedules are based on the assumption that the DHLW and CHLW would be emplaced in phase 1 of the first repository after phase 2 begins operating and reaches its design capacity (see Section 3. 1 for a discussion of the first"; These schedules are for illustrative purposes only at. repository phases) this time. The amount of defense waste to be disposed of in the repository. and the actual acceptance rates, have not yet been determined 'by the DOE.
, tance of civilian
A comparison of the two acceptance schedules , shows the following advantages of the improved- performance plan over the authorized plan for the ac~ep-
spent fuel:
Spent- fuel
acceptance can begin as soon as the integral MRS facility begins operation, possibly 1 to 2 years ahead of the repository. '
and reach the ' design level sooner, thus easing the
System waste-acceptance rates with the integral MRSfacility ramp problem of spentfuel storage during the critical years around 1998. In the particular example depicted in Table 2-3. the spent-fuel ba~klog after 1998 never exceeds the cumulative spent- fuel inventory in words. with the exception of a few years just before the ' $tartup of the second repo~itory, the acceptance rate matches or exceeds the rate of spent-fuel generation after 1998.
1998. In other
The choice of the receipt rate for the integral MRS facility establishes the bounds by which the integrated waste-management' system would accept and package spent fuel during the critical years from 1998 to the startup of the second repository in 2006. The rate at which the integral MRS facility would accept spent fuel is based on two major considerations:
The need to relieve the utilities of onsite-fuel-storage pressures that could result in the disruption of orderly nuclear reactor operations after Ja~uary 31, 1998.
2. The need to operate the overall system in ' an orderly, c~st-effective
manner, which implies the handling of suitably aged nuclear fuel and the maintenance of fairly constant receipt and packaging rates over extended periods of time.
The representative waste-acceptance schedule, for the improved- performance system described in this chapter is designed to achieve the following DOE
objectives:
28-
OCR
102023
08- 105318,