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

- - ..,

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 1 of 12

Another benefit of waiting for the additional teclmical information is that

the repository's design and development schedule described in the
documents that support a site recommendation may not describe the

facilities that DOE would actually develop. TheSe documents generally d~ribe s~ce and lUlderground facilities that DOE would design and build on a schedule permitt~g it to open the repositOlY in 2010. 1bis schedule, however, is \mrealistic if one assumes that DOE's existing prelicensing and construction time frames continue to be valid This uncertainty is compounded by questions about whether DOE can obtah\ the increases in annualfullding required to meet its schedule. On the other hand, a compelling incentive exists to open the repository in 2010 because
DOE is liable for damages, in amounts not yet detennined by the courts

~".:J

for not beginning to accept utilities' spent fuel by 1998. The damage amounts win in part be based on when DOE can begin to accept and deliver spen,t fuel to the repository. For these reasons , DOE is exploring alternative approaches to developing a repository, such as initially storing spent fuel at the repository site before constructing lmderground disposal facilities that could still enable it to accept spent fuel by 2010. ThUs defening a site recommendation until DOE has substantially completed the remaining technical work needed for an acceptable license application would also enable DOE to complete its consideration of alternative
3.IJproaches to

developing a repository at Yucca Mountain. DOE could then

ensure that the site recommendation is based on the approach that the Department intends to follow. This wouid enable DOE to develop the
estiImrted schedule to design and build the preferred approach and estimate its cost, including the annual fundIDg requirements , as part of the

infonnation on which to make a site recommendation.
DOE needs to reestablish a baseline for the nuclear waste progran1 that accounts for all of the outstanding technical work neededto prepare an

acceptable license application and the estimated schedule and cost to achieve this milestone. In coI\iunction with reestablishing a baseline for the program, DOE needs to resume using the baseline as a tool for managing the progran1, iri accordance with the Department' s policies and procedures for managing major projects.
To ensure that DOE will be prepared to submit an acceptable license

Recommendations for Executive Action

application within the timeframes setout in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Secretary of Energy should consider (I) deferring a site reconmlendation until it can meet the express statutory time frames that are triggered by a site recommendation by the PresIdent to the C-ongress and (2)including the results of DOE' s ongoing technical work for NRC and

Page Z-3

0030

GAO-O2- 191 Jlfuclc.-.ar Waste

,. . . ..

..
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-5 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 2 of 12

the results of analyses of alternative approaches to the proposed
repository in the Secret.ary s

comprehensive statement of the basis for a

site recommendation.
To improve the management of the nuclear waste program and to provide the Congress and the public with accurate "infonnation on the repository program, we further recommend that the Secretary of Energy

reestablish the baseline for the nuclear waste program through the . submission of a license application, including incorporating the remaining
technical work required to submit the application and the estimated cost and schedule to. compiete this work, and follow the Department's requirements for managing major programs and

proj~cts, including a fomw change control procedure.
~F::-

Agency COmments
and Our Evaluation

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for review and comment DOE disagreed with our report, contending that we did not understand the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements related to a site recommendation. Bechtel, DOE's management contractor, also provided us with a letter asserting unspecified factual and legal inaccuracies in our draft report; however, the company added that it would provide specific
comments through DOE. While it was not clear from DOE's commentS

which ones had come from Bechtel, weare responding to all comments
received on the following pages. According to DOE. our misunderstanding of the requirements resldtedin a contention in the draft report that it is

premature for DOE to make a site recommendation because all the technical work for license application is not complete. (DOE's comments are in app. n.) We agree that the Secretary has the discretion to make such a recommendation at this time; however, We question the prudence and practicality of making such a reCommendation at this time, given the express statutory time frilmes for license application and the significant amOtUlt of work remaining to be done for NRC t.o accept a license . application from DOE. Our concluSion is based on the relationship
between a site recomIl1endation and DOE's readiness to submit !1l\ acceptable license application to NRC, as set out in DOE's siting guidelines and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act The preamble to DOE' s siting

guidelines states that DOE expects to use essentially the same data for a site recommendation and a license application. Also, the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act states that a presidential site recommendation is to be made if the President considers the site qualified for a license application and sets

out a time frame that could be as short as 5 to 8 months from a presidential site recommendation to a license application. This includes

Page 24

0031

GAO-O2- Hn. Wuclear Waste

."

::/

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 3 of 12

the requirement that the Secretary of Energy submit a license application
not later than 90 days following congressional approval of the site. Thus

the statutory time frame is decidedly shorter than the 4-year estimate between site recommendation and license application that was recently proposed by DOE' s management contractor.
DOE also pointed out the difference between the decisIon at hand-

determining whether a potential site is licerisable-and the licensing NRC of a repository facility at the site. The latter decision would come at the end of a 3- to 4-year licensing proceeding. . In contrast, our report addresses the relationship between a site recommendation and the
submission of the license application.

DOE said that our draft report incorrectly states that DOE' s siting guidelines require the Secr~~, in making a site recommendation, to detennine if the site currently complies with NRC' s licensing requirements rather than. detennining if the site is "likely" to meet NRC' s radiation protection standards. We agree that the standard in DOE' s guidelines is

likely" and have added this language to the report. The report accurately states the relationship between a sit.e recommendation and a liCense
application under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the siting guidelines.

In addition , DOE stated that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act chargeS the Secretary with establishing criteria for detem1ining the suitability of a site for a repository and that the Department' s standards (siting guidelines) are

the most important legally relevant guidance on the question of whether the Department is ready to make a site recommendation~ Our report, DOE Said, ignores these standards and instead asserts a standard of our own devising. Contf8IY to DOE' s assertion, we did not evaluate DOE' performance against a standard we devised. We used the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act and DOE' s standards-that the site is likely to meet NRC' radiation protection standards-for a site suitability recommendation.

Moreover, a presidential site recommendation triggers statutory time frames that require DOE to submit a license application to NRC within about 5 to 8 months. Thus, our conclUSion regarding whether DQE should make a site recommendation relies on both the relationship between the standards for sit.e recommendation and license application and the statutory time frames. While recommending to the President that the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a repository is within the discretion of the Secretary of Energy; such a recommendation may be premature
because of the large number of technical issues remaining t.o be resolved before an acceptable license application can be filed with NRC.

Page 25

0032

GAO- O2-1!Jl 'Nuclear Waste

::;:

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 4 of 12

:c:;

DOE also stated that NRC's licensing process is an iterative and

continuous process; even the license application is not expected to be "set in concrete." We agree with DOE' s statement. The important point
however, is that DOE and NRC have made 293 specific agreements on

techniCal work that DOE will need to complete and incotpOrate into a license application that would be acceptable to NRC. This also assumes

that no new issues surface that would need to be addressecl
DOE said that our draft report emphasized the inventory of issues between DOE and NRC but completely ignored the technical work that h3s been

done over the past 2 decades and the technical groups who have said that DOE's data are sufficie,:tt for a site recommendation. We have added infonnation to the report recognizing the body of work that DOE has completed to date and the views of other technical parties mentioned by DOE. As discussed above, however, the central issue is not whether technical partieS are of the opinion that DOE has enough infommtion for a site reconunendation but the r~ationship, in statute and regulation between the site recommendation and the submission of an acceptable license application.
DOE also said our report gives short shrift to NRC' s recent "sufficiency letter" that, according to DOE, memorializes NRC;s conclusion that the

data and analyses existing and under way likely will be sufficient for a license aPplication. Instead, DOE added, our report over-relies on the
views of an NRC adviSOry committee. Our .characterization of NRC' sufficiency comments is acCurate. NRC did state that the agreements between DOE' s and NRC's staffs regarding the collection of additional

infonnation provide the basis for concluding that the development of an acceptable license 3.IJplication is achievable; however, NRC coI\ditioned. this comment on DOE' s successful completion of "significant" additional work prior to a license application. Also, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not refer to work "underway, " but uses the phrase "seem to be sufficient." FfuallY, we included the views of NRC' s advisory committee because NRC' s letter included these views.
In addition , DOE stated that our report prominently emphasizes the views of the Board as requiring the Department to acconm10date them before a site determination is made. DOE added that the report does not emphasize that the substance ofthe Board's criticisms is directed to
: :)o

licensing~not site reconm1endation. Contrary t.o DOE' s assertion , we did not. assert that DOE is "required" to accommodate the Board. We discussed the Board' s continuing concerns as outlined in its October 2001
letter to DOE. In that letter, the Board noted that gaps in data and

Page 26

0033

GAO-O2- 1!tl 'Nuclear Waste

....

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 12

analyses make the evaluation of DOE's technical bases on whether to recommend the site-not apply for a license-more difficult. Also, we. gave the Board' s current cOncerns about DOE' s site characterization work

as summarized in its October letter, prominent mention in our report because of the Board' s statUtory mission to independently evaluate the
technical and scientific validity of DOE's investigation of Yucca Mountain.
FinallY~ DoE

said that our statement that delaying a site recommendation

decision will have no effect on the timing of the ultimate opening of a to all common sense and experience. . We have repository is contrary removed that statement from the report. However, we note that the key

factors that bear on opening a repository currently lie in the licensing areru-. One such factor is the 4 more years of licensing-related work that
Bechtel, in its September 2001 detailed reassessment that proposed a new cost and schedule baseline, estiInates would be needed to subrnita license application that is acceptable to NRC. . In addition, other licensing~elated

conditions could continue to affect the timetable for developing a repository. For example~ Bechtel charact~ed its reassessment leading of a license application in January 2006 as a high-risk to the submission
schedule tl\at does not include any contingency or reserve---in effect, Also NRC, in its preliminary conunents on the optiInistic schedule. sufficiency of site characterization, Stated that if DOE adopts low.,.temperature repository operating approach, sucl1 as described in a

recent technical docmnent, then additional infonnation would be needed
for a potential license application.
Although we have clarified our discussion of

the statutory and regulatory

requirements for site recommendation, approval, and licensing, we
continue to believe that the Secretary timing of

Energy should consider the

of thiS statutory process as he decides when to make a site recommendation to the President. Therefore, while we have modified the of our recommendation on this language, we have not changed the intent matter. DOE did not comment on our findings conclusions, and recommendationS about (I) potential delays on, and alternatives to, its proposed repository design and (2) its management ofthe nuclear waste program.

Scope and

its project office in Las Vegas, Nevada. We

Methodology

We perfonned our review at DOE' s headquarters in Washington, D. , and NRC of met with officials also in Rockville, Maryland; the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in

Clarendon , VIrginia; and the state of Nev3.da s Agency for Nuclear Projects . in Carson CitY, Nevada. We conducted our review from April through

Page '1.7

0034

GAO-O2-I!JI 'NUclear Waste

:::: "'.

./.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 12

December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards. (See app. I for details of our scope and methodology.
We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will
. make copies available upon i'equest. .If you or you staff have any queStions

about this report, please call me at (202) 512-3841. reportarelisted in appendix m.

Key contributors to

this

:;z
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
(Ms. ) Gary L. Jones

"0.

:L.

Page 28

0035

GAO-O2-191 'Nuclear Waste

. '. . . .

-.

.. . " .. ...

, "

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 7 of 12

Appendix I: Objectives , Scope , and Methodology
Our objectives fQr this report were to determine whether (1) the Department of Energy (DOE) baS completed the work necessary to

support a site recommendation for the development of a repository at Yucca Mountain, and (2) DOE' s goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain -ill 20 1 0 is reasonable.
. 0

To determine whether DOE , thro~h its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), has completed the work necessary to

support a site recommendation, we discussed with DOE officials the nature and extent of such work and their relationship to the two processes. We also discussed teclmica1 iSsues still outstanding with staff of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, the Board' s Chainnan, and the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission s (NRC) Office of Nucl~ MaterialsSafety and Safeguards. We analyzed the Board' s annual reports and other correspondence to DOE , and summarized issues of concern affecting a, site recommendation raised by the Board to DOE. We also

t~)

reviewed documents obtained from NRC to identify. key technical issues

affecting readiness to submit an acceptable license application. We visited DOE's Yucca Mountain' Site Characterization Office in Las Vegas, Nevada, and interviewed officials in that office on the Department' s response to the
issues raised by the Board and NRC. We also reviewed project management documents at OCRWM's headquarters and at the project OCRWM' response to the issues office to identify and characterize how

reused had been incorporated into the project' s work plans and guidance
to the office s management contractor for the nuclear waste program. We interviewed officiaJ.s of Bechtel SAlC Company, LLC, DOE' s management contractor, and obtained and analyzed doclUnents prepared by the

contractor-such as its September 2001 detailed reassessment of the
nuclear waste program-to determine how ongoing and future project work-would address these issues, and the subsequent effects on the project schedule and milestones.
To determine whether DOE's goal of opening a repository at Yucca MolUltain in 2010 was reasonable, we analyzed OCRWM's reports and project documents. We interviewed officials in OCRWM' s headquarters and the project office to determine how total project and program costs had been captured, estimated, and reported to the Congress and the public. We sunm1arized the estimated program costs and associated

reasons for the milestones and changes over time. We also determined the
procedures used by DOE to revise its cost and schedule estimates for site

recommendation and license applicatiou, and assessed its use of those procedures.

page 29

GAO-O2- 19.1 .Nuclear Waste

0036

. '... ,. ).

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 12

Appendix I: ObJec:th-es, Scope, and Methodology

Our work was conducted from April through December 200 1 ,

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 30

0037

GAO-O2- 1!Jl

'N~clear

Waste

. ,;., -

:-)

(j)
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-5 Filed 04/16/2004

'..

Page 9 of 12

Appendix ll: Comments Froin the
Department of Energy

The Under Secretary. of Energy
wasftlngfon. DC 20585
December S.

200 I

The H9119rableDavid M. Walker Comptroller GenenII U.s. General Accounting Office 441 081rcc1. N. Washington. D.c. 20548

Dear Mr. Comptroller General: The Department has received. by November 28 letter, the General Accounting Office s proposed report, "Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule; and Cost UncertaintieS 011 the Yuc:ca Mountain RepositOl)- t'roject." The proposed report. addn:sses Ihc questiOn '\\itietber the Department of Energy is ready to make a recommendation to !he President regarding wbethet Yucca Mountain Is a suitable site for a potcntiallqlOSitory - a recommendation the Sccictary of Energy is called upon to make by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Let me emphasize at !he outset !hat. press reports to the cotitrary. !he Seaclaty has not decided 01\ a film time tiame for deteimining whether or not to recominend Yucca Moun~ for this purpose, lehlone having decided what !he
content of such a recommendation might be. That being said, the Department

believes the approach the- proposed report takes to these issues is profoundly flawed for reasons we explain below.

The proposed report asks. in effeCt. "why nowT' about making a site
detcRnirtation regarding the Yucca Moimtainproject. What it rc:aIistically leaves unaJJSWa1:d Is "then whcqr should the results of years of scientific inquiry

that the Seerctary of Energy and the Preskleat have enough information to make their determinations on the merits. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act insttucIs that the Scctttary' $ recommendation is to be made under Department siting guidelines that use the standard that a facility at the site is likely to meet NRC radiation protection standards. and after receiving the conclusion of the NRC whether the infonnation developed and underway will be sufficient for a license applicatiOR. The NRC recently rendered the sufficiency advice called for by the Act. Avoidance of a t!mcly decision - should it be otherwise called for on its merits would be a derdictiOll of duty owed to euqent and future generations of Americans to pursue willi thoughtful expedition the task of making safe ail high

Page 31

0038

GAO-O2. 1'91 ~uclear Waste

~:) ,.

. .' .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-5

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 12

Appendix D: Comments From the Department
of

Energy

levcl DUC1ear waste. Because theproposcd Iq)Ort is a:Brandeis brief' for delay, wcmust in these comments aitically evaluate its major points.

The cenlral contention ofthc proJ!()SCdreport

is that it is premature for the

DepartmCl)t to make a site recommendation for Yucca MOUIitain because the. for a Department has yet to complete all the remaining II:chnical work
license application. This contention reflects a profound IacIc of understanding

the statutory and regulatory mprinimentsbascd on an inaccurate depiction of
their context.

First, the decision at band involvcsdctcnnining a potcntiai
oC a 1i!QIDx. The construction and operation of

not the licensing

a fac:l1ity - here the repositorywould be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission !!fig: site detcnnination. The site itsdC is not licensed; inStead its features . may affect

design of the facility which is licensed. Thus dctemtining a site must occUr

before beginning the licensing procedure.

That is why the Nuclear Waste Policy Act specifically envisions two distinct decisions: one by thePrcsident. on the ~vlce oftheSecrctary ofEncrgy, as to
whcthel" a hypotbdiCal repository at Yucca Mountain is potentially IiceRsable by

the NRC; then one by the NRC as to whether a proposed l'q)OSitory, cOmpletc1 withdcsign specifications. should be allowed to be built andultimatdy operate there. Second, the proposed report misstates, in its brief kcatment of thcJn. the Department' s siting guidelines as requiring the judgment that the site cunentlv with NRC licensing requirements. Not only is this not what the s guidelines require, but duti!Ig the notice and conunent rulcmaking held on than over a period many years. not a single cori1mentcr suggested that the

. is likm to meet mc radiation protection standards - a predictive judgment that
inhcrcntly embraces the existence of incompletely resolved potentialliccnsing

Department adopt SUCh a standard. Rather, coosistcnt with the suucture outlined . above, the Dc:partment' s guidelines call for the judgnlCll.t tbat a facility at the site

issues. . .

Third, because the NWP A charges the Secretary with establishing "criteria to be used to determine the suitability of (a) site for the location ofa repository," the . Department s standards - in which the NRC has concurred, as the NWP A also requires - provide the most important legally releVant guidance on the question
whedlCl" the Department is ready to make a site n:commcodation. Yet
the

proposed report, despite purporting to answer that question. ignores these standards altogether and instead evaluates the Department' s readincss against a

standard of its own devising.

Page 32

0039

GAO-O2- 1!h "Nuclear Waste

~~
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-5 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 11 of 12

Appendix ll: Comments From the Department of Energy

Fourth. the NIlC liccosing proceu is one that the bas described as iterativc" and an "intqnited and (:QQtinuousprocess." That means that even the liceosc envi$ioned by the NWP A was not cxJlCCt.ed to be set

appIi~

on its submission but was insIead cxpccted:1o expcritII4:C refinement and
BII1C:I1dtnCnt duriog

!be licensing process, lIS was indicated in the NRC in effect when the Nliclear Waste Policy Act was adopted by Congress in 1982.

~Iioris

8n inventory of issues as to wbicb the Depaitmc:ut bas agreed with the NRC furthe( to develop for licensing puqIOSCS. At!hc same time itcomplete1yignorcs !he enormous body of scientific and IedmicaI work completed regarding the sitc . over die last ~o decades , hlcluding the inventory of some 600 papers cited in the Depaitmcnt' s May, 2001 Scicncc and Engineering RepOrt on Yuc:ca Mountain. Nor docs the proposed report touch Upon - or even ac1mowledgc thc cxislencc of - the substantial body of~diRCtly relevant analytic: published by the Department. incInding the 1998 Viability Assessment, the 2001 Prclilt\inary ~ite Suitability Evaluation, tbe 200 I Supplemental Science and Pc:rfonnance Anal)'$CS, the 1999 Draft Eovironmcntallmpact Statement, and the 2001 Supplement to the Draft filS.

Fifth. !he proposed report alfoids heavy and ccatral . emphasis to the existence of

lit~

Much less does the proposed report attcrilpt to evaluate the significance of the

u~1Vcd issues as compared with those that have been addressed and resolved
in !be appropriate timing for a site reoonuncndation. Nor does it address the m:ent formal conclusions of independent. teclmically-litcrate bodies like the u.s. Ocological Survey. !be InternatiOnal Peer RcYiewTeam of the International Atomie Eoeigy Agency and ibe Organization ofEcono.mic Cooperation and Dcvdopment' s Nuclear Energy Agency, and the Energy
Committee of the COuncil on Engineering of the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers. In substance each of these has advised the Department that, ftom the standpoint of thC disciplines within its instit1icional expertise. !be . information
adduced to date is sulrtclcot for 8 sitc rec:ommeqdatioiL
SutCh, the proposed report gives short slvift to thc NRC' s n:cent "sufficiency letter," that memorializes . sitc detennination judgnlcnt called for specifically by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to the effect thai the NRC bas concluded thailbc data and analyses eXisting and undc:nvay iikcly will be sufficient for a license application. Instcad the proposed report ccaters ilS attention on views auributed to an advisory committee to the NRc, ignoring chat it is the NRc, tatber than any of ilS individual or collective advisors, that is responsible under thc Nuclear Waste Polic:y Act (as in all else) for the c:onduct orits statutOty functions.

Seventh, and in a similar \-cin, the proposed report prominently emphasizes the views of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board asrcquiring the Department to ac:commodate !bent bcCoo: a site dctenninatioa is to be made. The Department regards the Board' s advice as extremely valuable and anticipates continuing to

Page 33

0040

GAO-O2-1ft 'Nuclear Waste

.,

p"
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-5

~~~~~
Page 12 of 12

Filed 04/16/2004

Appendix II: Comments Froni the Department

of Energy

~"~~~~m~~~~~
this advisory fimction. Congress

the Board no fOJDJal role in the siting

. p.wess when it establ1sbCd thiS body. And in any eveat what is not emphasized

in the proposed report is tb1IC the substance oldie BoanI' s criticisms is directed to factocs that bear on licensing the facility; not the identity of the site. Finally, the proposcdreport asserts that delaying a site rccolDinendation decision win have no effect on the timing of the ultimate opening of a tqXIsitory. That is QOIItrary to all comnion sense and experience. Yet this assertion plays a critical only realistic role in the struetnre of the: IqIOrt. Had the report made the will IiuIeed lead assumption 00 this question"; that delay on ~e to delay in opening a repOsitory - it would have had to come 10 grips with the costs as well. the benefits of delay. Fouxample: higb levd radioactive waste is country, cum:ntly stoRdin surface facilities at 129 sites in 39 Slates around with attendant Vulnerabilities. Yet the tqXIrt gives no weight to the uiten:sts of the communities when: this Waste in located ill having a decision on a site for a way or the other as soon as it can be made tcpository made promptly O!lC

rcco~

L;:

responsibly.

We look forwar4 to working with the GAO on this

i~t

issue.

Sincerely, .

iIu

G. C~J

~if'

Roben G. Card

Page 34

0041

GAO-O2- 191 -Nuclear Waste