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

;:;:,, ) .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 1 of 14

Appendix ill: GAO Contact and Staff Aclmowledgments
GAO Contact.
Dw~yne E. Weigel (202) 512-6876

Acknowledgments

In addition, D~etJ.

Feehan, Robert E. Sanchez, John C. Furntani,

Jonathan S. McMUrray, Lindy Coe, Doreen S. Feldman, and Susan vi. Irwin niade key contributions to this relX'rt:

(360068)

Page 35

0042

GAO-O2-191 ~11clear Waste

, .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 2 of 14

GAG'

~ion

The General Accowating Office. the investigative ann of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accowktability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses. recommendations. and other

. assistance to help Congress make informed oyersight, policy. and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good govenuuent is reflected in its core values

of accountability. integrity. and reltability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAG Reports and

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts ~d full-text files of CUITent reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety. including charts and
other graphics. '

Each day. GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correwondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today s Reports, " on its Web site dally. TIle list contains links, to the full-t.ext docwuent files. To have GAO e-mail this listto you every afternoon, go to W\\-"\v. gao. gov and select .Subscribe to daily

e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone

The fJISt copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.
GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard Orders fol" 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discowated 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
S. General Accounting Office
.P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

To order by Phone:

Voice: TDD:

(202) 512-6000
(20"2) 512-2537

Fax:

(202) 512-6061

VISit GAO's Docunlent

Djstribution Center

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (comer of 4th and G Streets , NW) Washington. D.

C. 20013

To Report Fraud Waste , and Abuse in

Contact:
Web site: www.gao. gov/fralldnetifraudnet.htm E.mail: fraudnet~gao. gov, or
1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system).

Federal Programs
Public Affairs

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, Nelligan.J~gao. gov (202) 512-4800 S. GeneraJ Accounting Offict' 441 G. StreetNW, Room 7149 Washington. D. C. 20548

0043
PRINTED ON fl:Je ReCYCLED PAPER

~~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-6 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 3 of 14

Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain

Overview

~9l'
6\'.

S. Department of Energy
Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management
DOEjRW-O508

0044

P A- 196032

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 4 of 14

DOFJRW- O50R

Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain
Overview

December 1998

s. Department of Energy

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office

0045

P A- 196033

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 14

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

O. Box 30307
North Las Vegas , Nevada 89036- 0307
or call:

Yucca Mountain Information Center 800-225- 6972
or visit: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project website http://www.ymp. gov

I'rinted with soy ink on recycled paper.

0046

P A- 196034

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

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 14

Contents
Introduction .."...... 1 The Viability Assessment... ............... ..................... ........ ...... ...................... ................ .... ......... 2 Results in brief........ ................

Background
The nuclear waste problem ......................... ............................................................"... 4 ...... .... ..... ...... ....... 6 Geologic disposal................... ......... The law and the regulations ........................................................................................ 8 How geologic disposal would work .............................................................................. Why, Yucca Mountain? .......................... ...................................................................... 10

Reference design
The design process .....
fhe reference design.............

............................. .......... ......... 12
"'."" 13

Performance assessment
Performance assessment models .....

...................... ..... 18
Iii

The attributes of safe disposal................................................................................... 19 Possible dose """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""".............................................
Other safety issues. ...... ........ .n. """

What we are learning ...
License application

...... 25 ............ ...... ............... ....." ...,.. ......... ............ ........... ................ 26

Plan to complete a license application ...................................................................... 27
..... ....... ............. 28 Operational safety........... ........"............. Long- term safety ..........................................................,.................... ".........n.............. 29
Estimated cost

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

.... ""'" ....... ...... 32
...... 33

Total system life cycle costs ....................."................................................................ 34
Who pays? .............................................................n"""""""""""""""""""""""""" 35

Conclusion Concluding observations ............................................................................................
Back matter
.............. .................. ........... ........... 38 Endnotes ....... ..... ............... ............ ........... .............." ...........n.. ...n..... .". ........ 40 Glossary.... ...n................... 42 Acronyms .............. ... ............ ..........

0047

P A- 196035

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 7 of 14

0048

P A- 196036

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 14

The Viability Assessment
The U. S.

Department of Energy (DOE) has

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

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

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

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

solution. The overview describes why the
plete in 1998 a viability assessment of the Yucca Mountain site that would describe
the following:
United States is considering Yucca Mountain and how a monitol' ed geologic reposi-

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

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

system peioformance assessment

license application , along with the esti.
mated cost of building and operating a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Finally, based on the information in the viability assessment, the overview concludes with

based on the design concept and the sci-

entific data and analyses available by
1998, that describes the probable behavior of a repository in the Yucca Mountain
geologic: setting

DOE' s

assessment of whether work at

Yucca Mountain should proceed.

. A plan and cost

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

Regulatory Commission
. An estimate of
the dC'.sign

the costs to construct and operate a repository in accordance with
concept

In the 1997 Appropriations Act

! Congress

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

the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project. The assessment also identifies the

critical issues that need to be addressed
before a decision can be made by the Secre-

0049

PA- 196037

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM
Introduction

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 9 of 14

Results in brief
Based on the viability assessment , DOE believes that Yucca Mountain remains a
promising Bite for a geologic repository and

that work should proceed to support a decision in 2001 on whether to recommend the

site to the President for development as a
repository. For the site to be recommended, DOE needs to dernonstrate that a repository can be designed and built at Yucca Mountain that would protect public health and safety and the environment for thousands of years.

Uncertainties remain about

key natural processes, the preliminary de. sign , and how the site and design would

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

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

ments. When this work is completed in
2001, a decision will be made by the Secre-

tary of Energy on whether to recommend the site to the President.
The advantages of Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site include its location,

semiarid climate, and deep groundwater
table.
. Yucca

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

Mountain is about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada , on unpopu-

The preliminary repository design includes
a long-

lated land owned by the Federal Govern-

lived waste package and takes ad-

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

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

barriers can

keep water away from the waste for thou-

is the primary means by which ra-

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

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

Mountain is located in a desert environment , with an average rainfall of about 7 inches per year.
. The nearest groundwater ,

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

years after the repository is

which is about

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

closed, people living near Yucca Mountain are expected to receive little or no
increase in radiation exposure.

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

. The

maximum radiation exposure from the repository is expected to occur after

0050

P A- 196b38

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 14
Introduction

about 300,000 years. People living approximately 20 kilometers (12 miles) from Yucca Mountain at that time might re-

. Prepare an environmental impact

statement, publish it for public comment in
1999, and finalize it in 2000

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

These tasks will cost approximately $1.1 bil-

lion to complete. If the site is suitable and DOE submits a license application in 2002
the estimated cost to successfully complete
the licensing process, build a licensed re-

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

pository, emplace the waste, and monitor and close the repository is approximately $18. 7 billion , in constant 1998 dollars.
Given adequate funding and

successful

Current schedules anticipate that the Secretary of Energy will decide whether to rec.
ommend the site to the President in 2001 after considering the views of States, affected Indian tribes , and NRC, as required
by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In

completion of the licensing process , the first

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

and sealed as early as 10 years after the
last waste is emplaced; or it could be kept

turn,

the President will decide whether to recom-

open and actively monitored for hundreds
of years, ifit

mend the site to Congress.

If Congress

agrees with the President's recommendation and the site is designated, DOE would

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

submit to NRC in 2002 a license application for construction authorization. To support these plans , DOE will:
. Obtain more information on key

toring period of 100 years, beginning with initial waste ernplacement. The repository is being designed to allow future generations to decide how long the repository should be monitored , and whether and
when to close and seal it.

natural

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

performance of candidate waste

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

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

tween the repository and the natural processes
1'1'18
Viability Assessment

includes costs from 1999 through closure and decommissioning, assumed to begin in 2110 and to be completed in 2116. It does not include $5. 9 billion that has been spent on the program through fiscal year 1998.

~ooo
Elwlronmtnt.al ImpKI Statement

, ~OOL
Site RtCOlMltndltion

I 2043
Optional

' , ~11b
AsSU1lltd

Optional

Closure

CIosIIft

Closum

2010
I '

~OO~

EmpllCt/lltntbeglns

t2Dri

EmpIacemeIll~

license AppIiQIion

Slop If sill Is unslilablt

Schedule for major repository milestones

0051

P A- 196039

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 11 of 14

Background

The nuclear waste problem
Countries worldwide have accumulated high. level radioactive waste by using
nuclear materials to produce electricity, to power naval vessels , and to make nuclear , weapons. Some elements of this waste are hazardous for a few years to several hun-

dred year~; some elements are hazardous for many' thousands of years. This waste

must he safely contained until it no longer
poses a significant risk to human health and -the enviroilmcnt.

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, Buchanan, NY

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

Storage pool for commercial spent nuclear fuel

of spent nuclear fuel from reactors that produce materials for nuclear weapons , from research reactors , and from reactors on the Navy s nuclear- powered ships and subma-

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

accumulated 38, 500 metric tons of used or

spent" nuclear fuel from commercial
nuclear power plants; this amount could more than double by the year 2035 if all

rines. The majority of DOE spent nuclear fuel is currently stored at three major sites in Idaho , South Carolina, and Washington. Under a negotiated settlement agreement between the State of Idaho, the Navy, and DOE , all spent fuel must be removed from

Idaho by the year 2035.

currently operating plants complete their
initial 40- y(!ar license period. The spent fuel is now stored in 33 states at 72 power plant sites and one commercial storage site and

is likely to remain where it is until a dis-

posal or central storage facility is constructed. When a power plant ceases operations. the spent nuclear fuel and other

radioactive materials must be removed before the plant can be fully decommissioned and the site used for other purposes.
F Area Tank Farm at Savannah River Site , near Aiken , SC

0052

P A- 196040

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 12 of 14

Background

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

must be disposed of in a secure facility that

will not only keep the waste away from
people but will also keep people away from the weapons-usable material for thousands of years. Ensuring national security and

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

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

underground tanks in Washington, South Carolina , Idaho , and New York 4 Under agreements between
lons are stored in

DOE and the states where the waste is stored , this high- level waste will continue to be solidified and placed in about 20 000
canisters for future disposal in a permanent
geologic repository.

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

radioactive waste are temporarily stored at

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

78 locations in 35 states ,

as shown below.

Some of these storage sites are closeto popu-

lation centers and are located near rivers,
lakes, and seacoasts. The stored materials , ineft where they are indefinitely, could become a hazard to nearby populations and the environment. 'I' hese nuclear materials require safe and permanent disposal.

needed arid

disposing of surplus plutonium and other

nuclear materials associated with weapons

production. These radioactive materials

locations of spent nuclear fuel and high. level

radioactive waste destined for geologic disposal

'" oIOCIober30. 1998

0053

PA- 196041

.., "~~~'=~Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-6 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 13 of 14

Background

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

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

In 1962, the Atomic Energy Commission

began investigating salt formations , including bedded salt and salt dornes ,

as poten-

tial host rock for repositories. In 1975 , the Energy Research and Development Administration , predecessor to DOE , selected a site near Carlsbad, New Mexico , for the Waste Isolation Pilot Project , which is to dispos(! of tJ' ansuranic waste. In 1976, the Energy Research and Development Administration also began to investigate other geologic formations and to consider different

Dry cask storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel

proach for nuclear waste disposal. A panel

disposal concepts, including deep-seabed disposal , disposal in the polar ice sheets,
and rocketing waste into the sun. After extensive evaluation of the options , DOE concluded in 1981 that disposal in an underground mined geologic repository remained
the preferred option.

of ~he National Academy of Sciences noted in 1990 that there is "a worldwide scientific consensus that deep geological disposal the approach being followed by the United States, is the best option for disposing of high- level radioactive waste.
However, there are differing views on how

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

rapidly waste should be disposed of and whether it should be disposed ofirreversibly. Some argue that waste should be
stored for several generations to allow scientists to learn more about. geologic disposal
and to take advantage of

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

new and better
along. That

technologies that may come

the hazard to decline to low levels. That search led to geologic environments that have remained stable for millions of years

would keep all options op(m for future generations. But it would also require them to
bear all the costs of exercising those options.

and are likely to remain so. Scientists widely agreed that waste packaged in robust , long- lived waste packages and placed
deep in such stable geologic environments

One way to preserve these options and still provide a permanent solution is to dispose of waste in a manner that permits , but does
not require , the retrieval of waste; the waste

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

would be disposed of, but not irreversibly.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 19828 requires that spent nuclear fuel emplaced in

Since the first scientific study in 1957, virtuaUy every expert group that has looked

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

at the nuclear waste problem has agreed
that a geologic repository is the best ap-

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

0054

P A- 196042

..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

.~ "

';"

..

, .

-.' ~"

.

\~~./

-.

Document 789-6

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 14 of 14

Background

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
regulations require that a geologic

reposi-

allowable under NRC regulations , or of keeping it open and monitoring it for hundreds of years.

tory be designed for waste retrieval at any

time upto 50 years after waste emplacement bcgins.
Tho DOE is designing a monitOJ' ed geologic

A geologic repository will not require perpetual human care and will not rely on the

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

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

clos-

ing and sealing the repository as early as

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

437

Nuclear Pow Operatlnf! Worldw.
25 Nuclear Power

Reactors Reactors

..'Y

Being Built

r~~
79 Nuclear Power or Planned

Ordered

J I. I. J I. I. 1.1. IJIIJ IJ JIIJ J I IIJ IIJJ O'- C 't) C ~ III JJ IJ c'- ~' ~ ~Q~I!?'- VJ!!'--~ I.! c a.WE f! :J -8 .!j.c:.~~ fij' O::.QQ-s ii' t:i.c:..c:. .0( co co 0:: .E ~ 0 0 CII C:Jenl:jFf- 2j1 0 'en ~ZQ)
I. J J

.I.

.I
.c:.

I.~ I. \. .
II

J 1..1.

J J

i r:E'CO.2'fijo l::

5i .

c't) c,-= i5; IU C CQ :E .0
II) u..u..

IU C C C 10 10 IU
1!!CQJ!!

E::E

fI) C CQ 10 ~ CQ 10 C G)~32 fij ::!t:i CQ;s e.o(en ~\1I

II))

:t'

111'1::::;-' -sQ.0:: en

I.

-10 ClpGralHlg R.aclofs I. -10 Bulding Roadors I. ~10 Ordering or Planning Reac:Iors

~Q) (ij

G)

:J.!2

(ij

"&Ci)

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

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

0055

P A- 196043