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

..

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 1 of 14

infomlation for the mathematical models used to evaluate the perfonnance of the p1an~ed repository at the site.

nickel-chromium 3ll0y that would isolate tbe wastes fromthe environment fQr more than 10 000 years. Minimizing uncertainties about the container materials and the prediCted performance of the waste containers over this long time period is especi311y critical because DOE' s estimates of the

The uncertainties related to engineered barriers revolve lareely around the loitgevi13' of the waste containers that would be used to isdlate the wastes. DOE currently expects that ~esecontainers would be constructed with a

repository system s perfonnance depend heavily on the waSte containers
and safety standards. As part of its

in addition to the naturalfeatures of the site, to meet NRC;s licensing
regulations and EP A's health

agreements with NRC, DOE will continue its research on the expected rate

of corrosion ofthe containermatenaland the anticipated effects of

evidence thus far to rule out the use of the proposed container materials but noted tlmt significant work is needed to substantiate the technical basis for predicting the stability of these materials. The report also st3ted

corrosion on the performance of the repository system. In addition, DOE fom\ed a peer review panel to address uncert.ainties about how materials for waste containers would be expeded to perform over time in the repository. A September 2001 interim report by the panel foID\d no

thatthe uncertainty about the containers ' long-term performance probably could be reduced substantially through further experiments and analysis.

. The uncertainties related to the physical characteristics of the site involve a wide variety ofissues. According to DOE officials, while some of these

iSsues have been and are continuing to be studied by DOE, remaining

uncertainties include

the faulting and fracturing of the repository rock overtime; the flow of water through the heated portion of the repository; . the flow of water through the saturated and ID\Saturated zones of the repository under natural (prerepository) conditions; the stability of the repository under natural conditions, heat.ed conditions, . and conditions involving seismic events;

i The

pet'.1"

review c:ornprised recognized experts from industry and academia.
saturated with groundwater.

6 The satumted zone is Uta! 8!-ea beneath the .repository that is

The unsaturated zone is above the water table.

Page 9

GAQ-O2-1aI

Jfuclear Waste

0016

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 2 of 14

. the movement of radioactive material through the repository in the event
of

a release of this material;
of

the effect

volcanic activi13' on the repository; and

of heat, water, and chemical processes in and around the tunnels where the waste containers would be placed the combined effects

According to officlaIs in DOE's repository project om~e, the an\ount of
current scientific uncertaiDty within each

exmuple, the flow

of

of these areas vanes. For water under natural conditions through the area

where the repositoty would be located is relatively well U11derstood.

In

contrast, there is much more current uncertainty about how the combination of heat, water, and chemical processes caused by the
presence of

m~clear waste, in the repository would affect the flow

of

through the repositoiy.
The NRC staff's concerns over the supporting information for the

water

mathematical models that DOE would use as its primary tool for assessing the peIfomtance of the repository revolved primarily around validating the . models and verifying the infonnation used in the models. PeIfonnance assessment js an analytical method that relies on computers to operate mathematical models to assess the PeIformance of the repository against
. EPA's health and safety standards. NRC' slicensing regltlations, and DOE' guidelines for det.ennining if the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a

repository. DOE uses the data collected during site characterization
actiVities to

model how a repository system, compriSing bOth natural and

engineered features, would peIfonn at the Yucca Mountain si~ Some
DOE' s mathematical mOdels describe the behavior of individual physical and cbemical processes, SUcl\ as how qUickly water might travel from the surface to the repasitOIY. DOE then links the results of theSe indiVidual models together into a computer model representing the perfonnance of

the overall reposiwty system. DOE then uses this model , caned a "performance assessment model " to estimate the release of radioactivity from a repository under a range of conditions and over thousands of years. The model also enables DOE to forecast the dose of radiation to hypothetical persons living in tl\e vicinity of the repository and compare them with EP A's health and safety standards. DOE' s agreements with NRC are centered on ValiWiting the models-presenting information to provide confidence that the mOdels are valid for their intended use-and verifying the information that has been collected during the site investigation and
used in these models.

In addition to the NRC staffs concerns about DOE' s models, NRC' Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste has raised concerns about the

Page 10

GAO-O2-1M Nuclear Waste

0017

' ,.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 3 of 14

adequacy of the performance assessment model that DOE used to support the infonnation discussed inthe technical documents it has issued
support a site recommendation.1 In a September 18, 2001 , letter to the chainnan of NRC, the committee concluded that the model did not provide

a basis for estimating performance and did not inspire confidence ill the modelirig process. The committee s conclusions were based on its concern that the modeling
is guided by an inconsistent set of asswuptions, including a mixture of

conservative and noncoriselVative bounding assumptions, that do not

represent realistic conditions and

relies on many assumption-base4 computations and analyses th3.t do not support or link the assumptions with available evidence.

According to the directOr of DOE's repository project office, the additional

,

work surrounding the 293 agreements with NRC' g staff is an insignificant addition to the extensive an\ount of technical work already completed. Moreover, this official does not expect that completing the additional technical work will change DOE' s current perfonnance assessment of a repository at Yucca Mountain. ~o , in commenting ORa draft of our report, DOE stated that it has compiled an enormous body of scientific and technical work over the last 2 decades including some. 600 papers
cited in one of the recently published reports. The Department also cited

a substantial body of analytic literature it has published in recent years.
FrOm NRC' s perspective, however, the agreements provided the basis for it to give DOE, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, its preliminary cominents on the sufficiency of DOE' s investigation of the Yucca Mountain

site for inc1usion in a future license application. In a November 13, 2001 letter to the Under Secretary of Energy, the Chaim\an of the NRC

commented that
(il.Jlthough significant additional work is needed prior to theslIbmission of a possible license application , we believe that agreements reached betw'een DOE and NRC staff

7 The conunittee , established by NRC to affiise it on nuclear waste regulatolJ' issues . comprises experts in several disciplines, induding risk a.~nent.
.S

DOE mentioned its Viability Assessment (1998). PreliminalJ' Site Suitability Evaluation (2001), Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses (2001), Drafi Environmental
Impact Statement (1999), and Supplement to the dmft EIS (2001).

Page 11

GAO-O2- 1~1 'Nuclear Waste

0018

.\
~!.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 4 of 14

regarding the coUection of additional information provide the basis for concluding that

development of an acceptableJicense ~pli~ation is adtievable.

The NRC Chairman s letter also pointed out iliat NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste noted, similar to tl\e NRC staff, that substantial additional wQrk by DOE is needed prior to its submission of a

license application.
Since its first report to the Congress and Secretary of Energy in 1990 , the
Board has consistently raised issues and concerns over DOE' lmderstanding of the expected lifetime of the waste containers, the

significance of the uncertainties involved in the modeling of the scientific
data, and the need for an evaluation and comparison pI a repository design

having a higher temperature with a design having a lower temperature.
The Board continues to reiterate theseconcems in correspondence

DOE' s director of the nuclear waste program. and in its reports to tl\e Congress and tl\e Secretary of Energy. For example, in an August 2000

letter to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, House Committee on Conm\erce, the Board reported that the technical basis for DOE's longterm projections of repository performance had "critical weaknesses. " The Board explained that some of the large ID\certainties about the proposed repository s perfom\ance over thousands of years-including the estimated corrosion rat.es of waste containers and predicted behavior of the geologic system-were greater at the higher temperatures that would result fro~ DOE' s design of the repository. At a January 2001 public
meeting with DOE , the Board told DOE that
to

determine whether the

Yucca Mountain site is suitable for use as a repository, DOE must focus its attention on four-priority issues: (1) quantifYing the uncertainties in the models Used to estimate the repository s performance; (2) gaining a further understanding of the processes related to the corrosion of waste containers; (3) evaluating and comparing a repository design having a higher temperature with a design that has a lower temperature; and (4) developing evidence other than performance assessment modeling to
support the estimates of repository performance.

In October 2001 , the Board reported that, despite DOE's progress in responding to the Board' s concerns, gaps in data and analyses make evaluation of DOE' s technical bases on whether to reconm\end the site more difficult. The Board provided several examples of these gaps. First the Board noted that DOE has not yet completed a comparison , promised in a May 30, 2001 , letter to the Board, between a high-temperature and a low~temperature repository design. The Board explained that a design with a lower temperature has the potential to reduce the level of

Page 12

0019

GAO-QZ- l!t-l 'Nuclear Waste

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 14

uncertainty in DOE's modeling results. Second, DOE does not appear to

have implemented the Board' s suggestion, made in two previous letters to DO E. to examine more closely the contribution that each piece of natural and engIneered barriers makes to the repository s overall perfonnance. Third, the Board observed that DOE had not presented a clear and persuasive m1ionale for going forward with a site recommendation before resolving the important issue of the potential consequenceS to the repository franlvolcanic activity. Last, the Board asked that, ifth~
analyses refeired to in the letter would not be available before DOE' decision on whether.to recommend the site to the President, DOE provide

its rationale explaining why the analyses are not import.ant for site recommendation as well as any plans for subsequently conductillg the work if the site were recommended and approved for repository development.
Recent reports to. DOE by the U. S. Geological Survey and an international peer review team provide further insights into DOE' s site investigation. An October 2001 letter from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), which has long played an active role hi the site investigation, stated that the scientific

work petfonned to date supports a decision to recommend the site for development as a repository. However, USGS qualified its position by noting that it wasconunenting only within the scope of its earth science expertise and was neutral regarding other information the Secretary might consider. USGS also pointed ont that additional studies need to be perfonned even after a site recommendation.

In November 2001 an international peer review panel released an executive summary of the results of its review of DOE' s performance . assessment modeling for a potential site recommendation. The panel~ which perfonned the review at DOE's request, was organized by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations. The panel did not comment on the results of DOE' s modeling . efforts but found that DOE's methodology is soundly baSed and
implement.ed in a competent manner. Overa;ll, the panel stated, DOE'

approach provides an adequate basis for supporting a stat.ement on likely compliance within the regulatory period of 10,000 years and for a site
reconm\endationdecision. The panel also qualified its findings, however by stating that the findings were based on a brief review and not an

in-depth analysis. The panel also called for a number of improvements in DOE' s approach to perfoID\ance assessment, including demonstrating an
understanding of the behavior of the overall repository system rather than

Page 13

GAO-O2. 1!l1 .Nuclear Waste

0020

.'

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 14

focusing on the numerical results of the assessment, and identifying and treating all types of uncertainty in the modeling.
As recently ~ May 2001 , DOE projected that it could submit a license

application to NRC in 2003. It now appears, however, that DOE may not
complete 3ll of the additional te~cal work that it has3greed to do to prepare an acceptable license application until January 2006~ In September 2001, Bech.td .completed, at DOE' s direction, a detroied reassessment in an

effort to reestablish a cost and schedule baselin~ Bechtel ~mted that

DOE could complete the outstanding technical work agreed to with NRC

and submit a license application in January 2006. This estWlate was based
on guidance from DOE that, fu part, directed the contractor to assume annual funding for the nuclear waste program of $410 million in fiscal year 2002, $455 milliOn in fiscal year 2003, and $465 million in fIScal year 2004

and thereafter DOE has not accepted this estimate because, according to program officials, the estimate would extend the date for submitting a license application too far futo the future. Instead, DOE is now considering accepting only the fiscal year 2002 portion of Bechtel's detailed work plan
and requesting Bechtel to prepare anotl\er work plan for fiscal year 2003 through submission of a license application.

Essentially the Same . Infonuation Is Needed for
. a Site

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and DOE' s site suitability guidelines while the site recommendation and a license application are separate
processes, DOE Will need to use essentially the same data for both. Further, Site recommendation and license application are connected by

Recommendation

and a License Application

law with specific timeframes that require DOE to submit a license application to NRC withm about 5 to 8 months once the President considem the Site qualified for a license application and makes a site recommendation to the Congress.
Under the act, DOE's site characterization activities are to provide infonnation necessary to evaluate the Yucca Mountain site' s suitability for

submitting a license application to NRC for placing a repository at the site. In implementing the act, DOE's guidelines provide that the site will be

suitable as a waste repository if the site is likely to meet the radiation
protection standards that NRC would use to reach a licensing decision on

the proposed repository. Thus, as stated in the preamble (introduction) to DoE' s guidelines, DOE expects to use essentially the same data for the site recommendation and the license application. .
In addition , the act specifies that) having received a site recommendation from the Secretary, tl\e President shall submit a recommendation of the

Page 14

0021

GAO-O2-191 Nuclear Waste

. ~

.?)
Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM Document 789-4 Filed 04/16/2004

!.)
Page 7 of 14

site to the Congress if the President considers the site qualified for a license application. Under the process laid out in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act, once the Secretary makes a site reconm\endation, there is no time limit under which the President must act on the Secreta.ry's

recommendation. However, once the President makes a recommendation to the Congress that it approve the site, specific statutory time frames are triggered for the next steps in the process. Figure 1 shows the .
appr9ximate statutory. time needed between a site recommendation and

submission of a license appliCation and the additional time needed for DOE to meet the conditions for an accepblhle license application. For illustrative purposes, figure 1 assumes that the Secretary reconm\ends the
site to the President on January 30, 2002 and the President recommends the site to the Congress 6 months later on July 30, 2002.. The figure also assun\es Nevada disapproves the site but that the Congress overrides the state' s disapproVaL As shown in the figure, Nevada haS 60 days to

, disapprove the site, and if disapproved, the Congress has 90 days (of continuouS session) in which to enact legislation overriding the state' disapproval. lithe Congress ovenides the st&e' s disapproval and the site
designation takes effect, the next step is for the. secretary to submit a

license application to NRC within 90 days after the site designation is effective. On the basis of Bechtel's latest program reassessment, DOE would ben\ a position to submit a iicense application to NRC in January
These statutory time frames provide about 150 to 240 days.

2006.
the President.

or about 5to

8 ...onths, .from the time the President makes a recommendation to DOE'

submittal of a license application. DOE. however, will not be ready to file an acceptable application with NRC for several years." (See fig. Therefore, the Secret.ary of Energy should consider the timing of this
statutory process ashe decides when to make a site recommendation to

0 In the congressional conference report on fiscal year 2002 appropriations for energy and
2002. They recognized that certain scientific and engineering work is directly related to the sit.e s recommendation and to reSOl\-ing technical concerns of NRC and the Board, and that such work should not automatically temtinate upon submission ocUte site reconunendation." H. Rep. No. 107-258. all22 (2001).
water development, the conferees stated that tbey expect DOE to deliver the fine" site reconU1lendation report and environmental m\pact stat.ement to the CoDgl"ess by Feb. 28.

Page 15

GAO-02-UJl -Nuclear Waste

0022

;\

.. .

;,, ' ...,' "

" .-"".

.. ..

-...,"'--.-..
..

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 14

. Figure 1: Comparison of Statutory Site Approval Process With DOE' s Projected Schedule

Statutory time

AddItIonal U- needed

Co meet eg.-eements

January 2002 ..

. Januar

2006

. No prescribed statutory lime frame.

. 90 calendar days ofconlinuous session of lhe Congress.

DOE Is Unlikely

DOE . in a docun\ent that would support a potential site recommendation
states that it may be able to open a repository at Yucca Mountain in 2010.

Open a Repository in 2010 as Planned

This expectation is predicated on the submission of a license application
to N~C in 2003, receipt of the con$rUctionauthorization
in 2006,

and

construction of enough surface and underground facilities to begin putting wastes into the repoSitory in 2010. However, according to Bechtel's September 200 1 detailed reassessment of the nuclear waste program, in which it proposed to reestablish a baseline ~or the program, a more realistic date for submitting the license application may be January 2006. Reestablishing the program s baseline is necessary because DOE stopped using the baseline to manage the program in March 1997. Since then, program officials have used revised estimates for the license application date in various internal and external reports, but none of these changes were approved as required and the program s cost and schedule baseline has never been revised to reflect these changes. As a result, DOE does not have a baseline estimate of the program s schedule and cost that is based
on 3ll the work that it expects to complete through the submission of a

license application. Because of uncertainty over when DOE may be able to open the repository, the Department is exploring altematives that might still pennit it to begin accepting commercial spent fuel in 2010.

Page 16

GAO-02-:UH ~nclear Waste

0023

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 9 of 14

In its most recent report on the program s estimated cost, DOE states that DOE' s Curn;mt License. Application ; Milestone Date it expects to submit the application to NRC in 2003. Thjs date reflects a
1(1

Is Not Supported by the
. Program' s Baseline

delay in the license aPplication milestone date laSt approved by DOE in March 1997 that targeted March 2002 for submitting a license application. The 2003 date was not fonn311yapproved by DOE' s senior managers or

incorporated into the program s cost and schedule baseline, as requii-ed by the management procedures that were in effect for the program. At least

three extensions tor the license application date have been propOBe.d, none of the th.ree proposals have been approved as required

but

DO E designates some of its programs and projects, such as the n~lclear waste prdgran\,to receive special attention from senior DOE managers because of the complexity or costs of the programs and projects. DOE's gwdance for managing these designated programs and

~ated

projects requires, an\ong other things, that senior managers establish a baseline form8naging the program or project. The baseline describes the program s mission-in this case , the safe disposal of highly radioactive waste in a geologic repository-and the expected technical requirements schedule, and cost to complete the program. Procedures for controlling changes to an approved baseline are designed to ensure that program
managers consider the expected effects of adding, deleting, or modifying

technical work, as well as the effects of unanticipated events, such as funding shortfalls, on the project' s mission and baseline. In this way, alternative courses of action can be assessed on the basis of each action
potential effect on the baseline. DOE' s procedures for managing the

nuclear waste program require that program managerS revise the baseline as appropriate, to reflect any significant changes to the program.
. After March 1997, accordh\g to DOE officials , they did not always follow

these control procedures to account for proposed changes to the program s baseline, including the changes proposed to extend the date for liceose application. According to these same officials, they stopped following the control procedures because the Secretary of Energy did not
approve proposed extensions to the license application milestone. As a

result, the official baseline did not accurately reflect the pro~l S cost and schedule to complete tlieremaining work necessary to submit a
license application.

10 See

AnaJy..;is of au: Total System Life Cycle Cost of flte Cit'ilian
(OOFJRW-O53-3, May 2001).

Radioactive Waste

Management Progmm.

Page 17

0024

GAO-O2-19'l Nuclear Waste

,.

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 14

. 1

In November 1999, the Yucca Mountain site investigation office proposed extending the license application milestone date by 10 months, from March to December 2002 , to compensate for a $57.8 million drop m
funding for fiscal year 2000. According to the specific management procedures that DOE adopted for the .nuclear waste program, a proposed

extension in the license application milestone required the approval of both the Dire~or of the nuclear waste program and the Secretary of Energy. Nei~~ of these officials approved this propoSed change nor was .

the baseline revised to reflect this change even though the Director
subsequently began reporting the December 2002 date in quarterly
performance reports to the Deputy Secretary of Eq.~rgy.

Less than a year later, in September 2000, the site investigation office once again proposed.an exte nsion to ~he license application milestone to July 2003 becaUse' of reduced funding and added technical work. Then, in
the site investigation office proposed another extension in the milestone , to December 2003. As with the November 1999 extension
February 2001 ,

request, neither the Director of the nuclear waste program nor the Secretary of Energy approved either of the latter two requests, nor was either extension date for the license application milestone incorporated
into the baseline for U\e program. Furthermore, as with the November 1999 proposed change, DOE began to use th~ unapproved milestone dates in both internal and exten1aI reports and communications. For example,

the Director used the unapproved 2003 date for submitting a license. application twice in congressional testin\ony in May 2001. Later September 2001 memorandum to the DOE Under Secretary discussing the goals of the nuclear waste program through January 2005 , the Director established 2004 as his goal for submitting a license application.

, in a

Because senior managers did not approve tl\ese proposed changes for incorporation into the baseline for the program, program managers did not a(ljust the program s cost and schedule baseline. By not accounting for these and other changes to the program s technical work, milestone dates, and estimated costs in the program s baseline since March 1997 , DOE has not had baseline estimates of all of the technical work that it expected to

Page 18

0025

GAo-O2- JJH J'iuclear Waste

,)" , . ...

::)

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 11 of 14

complete through submission of a license application and the estimated schedule and cost to complete this WOrk.
When Bechtel was contracted to manage the nuclear waste program, one

of its first asSig.un~is was to document the remaining technical work that had to be completed to support the submission of a license application and to ~stimate th~ time and cost to complete this work The contractor revised, unofficial baseline for the program shows that it Will take until January 2006 to complete essential technical work and submit an
acceptable license application. DOE also estimated that completing the

remaining technical work would add about $1.4 billion to the cumulative cost of the program, bringing the total cost of the Yucca Mountain project' s portion of the nuclear waste program to $5. 5 billion. U AS noted
above, DOE 'has not~ccepted Bechtel's proposed new baseline extending

out until January 2006. Instead. DOE is considering accepting, at present

only that portion of the baseline that Bechtel proposed to complete in fiscal year 2002.

Extension of License Application Date Will

. Likely Postpone 2010 . Repository Goal

An extension of the license appli~tion date to 2006 would almost certainly preclude DOE from achieving its long-standing goal of opening a repository in 2010. According to DOE' s May 2001 report on the program estimated cost, after submitting a license application in 2003, DOE

estimates that it could receive an authorization to construct the repository in 2006 and complete the construction of enough surface and underground facilities to open the repository in 2010, or 7 years after submitting the license application. This 7 -year estinmte from submittal of the license
application to the initial construction and operation of the repository

assumes that NRC would grant an authorization to construct the facility in 3 years, followed by 4 years of constmction. AsSunung these sante estimates of time, submitting a license application in 'January 2006 would extend the opening date for the repositOry until about 2013.

by DOE contractors. On the latter review, the contractor concluded that DOE.s schedule . for licensing, constructing, and opening the reposit.oty by 2010 was optimistic by about 2 years and that DOE' s estimate of the total costoCthe program o\' er its loo-plus-year Iifetime-$58 billion (2000 doUars)-was understated by about $3 billion.
I~ DOE estimated that the program cost $4. 1
billion

1\ In 1998 and 2000, independent

cost and schedule revie\\'S of the program were performed

, on the basis of year-of-expenditure

dollars from the program s
January 2006.

inceptioniu 1983

Uuough March 2002. TIle $5.5 billion estimate

for the license application Is based on year-oC-expenditure dollars from 1983 through

Page 19

0026

GAo.o2- Hn "Nuclear Waste

~'~ . .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 12 of 14

Furthennore, opening tl\e repository in 2013 may be questionable for several reasons. First, a repository at Yucca Mountain would be a first-ofkind facility, meaning that any schedule projections may be optimistic.

DOE has deferred its original target date for opening a repository from 1998 to 2003 to 2010. Second, altl\ough the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states that NRC has 3 years to decide on a construction license, a fourth year may be added if mc certifies that it is necessary~ Tbird. the 4-year time
period for construction that DOE's current schedule 3ll0ws from tl\e

issuance of a c~nstructionauthorization to the opening of the repository may be tooshort.Fof example, a contractor hired by DOE' to independently review the estimated costs and sdledule for the nuclear waste program reported that the .4-year construction period was too optimistic and recommende4 that the construction phase be extended by a year-and- half. l;1 Bechtf~1 anticipates a 5-year period of construction between the .receipt of a construction autl\orlzation from NRC to tbe opening of the repository. Thus, on the bases of a 4-year liCensing period and a 5-year period for initial construction, tl\e repository might not be
ready to open until about 2015 if DOE does not apply for a license until
January 2006.

simple projections do not account for atly otller factors that ~ould adversely affect this 7- to 9-year schedule for licensi11& constructing, and opening the repository. Annual appropriations for the program in recent years have been less than $400 million. In contrast, aCcording to
Fin311y, these

to open the repository on that schedule. In its August 2001 report on alternative means for financing and managing the program, DOE stated

DOE, it needs between $750 million to $1.5 billion in annual appropriations dunng most of the 7- to 9-year licensing and construction period in order

that lmless the program s funding is increased, the budget might become the "deterntining factor" wheth~r DOE will be able to accept wastes in 2010.

14
CoOst Total System Moons

1;1 See

Independent

Eslilnale Life

Rct.ietv oJ Cycle Cost

the CtVUialt Radioa.ct.tve Waste Management

PJ"ogrmn, 2001 14 See ./llternati/:e ManagemellJ

(Jan.. 2001).

of Financing

and A-fa1wging

th.e Civilian RadioacJi:oo Waste

Progmm. (OOE'RW-t)546, Aug. 2001).

Page 20

0027

GAO-OZ- f91 '"Nude&" Waste

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 13 of 14

DOE Is Reviewing

Because of the uncertainty of achieving the 2010 goal for opening the
Yucca Mountain repository, DOE is examining alternative approaches that would pennit it to meet the goal In May 2001 , DOE released a report on
11; potential options for constructing and operating the repository. It is also

Alternative Ways to Accept
Wastes in 2010

sponsoring a National Research Colmcii study on possible approaches to developing a repository in stages over alonger duration.
DOE' s May rewrt evaluates a range of approaches to developing and

operating the rePository system and strategies for implementing these approaches. For example, to reduce the uncertainties of receiving substantially higher.appropriations needed to open the repository as planned, DOE examined approaches tMt might permit it to begin accepting wastes at the repository site in 2010 while spreading out the constrnction of repository facilities over a longer time period. The study
re(;ommended deve1oping the repository
on a D:\odular basis,

separating

tE)

the rate ofa.ccepting wastes at the repository site from the rate of waste emplacement in the \mderground disposal areas by relying on the surface storage of received wastes until the capacity to move wastes into the repository has been increased. For example, relatively modest-sized surface facilities to handle wastes could be expanded later to handle larger volumes of waste. Such a modular approach, according to the study results, would permit partial construction and linUted waste emplacement in the repository, at lower than earlier estimated annual costs, in advance of the more costly construction of the facility as origin311y planned. Also
by implementing a modular approach, DOE would be capable of accepting

wastes at the repository earlier than ifit constructed the repository described in doclUnents, such as the Science and Engineering Report that . the Secretary would use to support a site recommendation.
In addition , DOE has contracted with the National Research Council to provide recommendations on design and operating strategies for developing a geologic repository in stages , whic1\ is to include reviewing DOE' s modular approach. The Council is addressing such issues ' as the
. technical ,

policy, and societal objectives and risks for developing a staged . repository;

CRWJlS Modular DesignlOmstru-CliCffl and Operation Optw-ns Report (DOFJOCRWM. TDR-CRW-MD-OOOOO2, Rev. 0.3, May 2001).

15 See

Page 21

0028

GAO-O2-1M fiuclea.r Waste

;; . ; . ::;'

. .

Case 1:98-cv-00126-JFM

Document 789-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 14 of 14

. effects of developing a staged repositoty on the safety and security of the facility and the effects on the cost and public acceptance of such a facility; and strategies for developing a staged system including the design,
construction, operation, and closing of such a facility-

The Council expects to publish interim and final reports on the study in

about March 2002 and December 2002, respectively.
In part, DOE's desire to meet the 2010 goal is linked to the court decisio~ that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,. as implemented b~ DOE' s contracts with owners of commercial spent ('oel, obligated DOE to begin accepting spent fuel from contract holders not later than January 31, 1998, or be held

liable for damages. Courts are currently assessing the amount of damages

that DOE ml1$tpay to holders of spentfuel disposal contracts. Estimates

fuel
Conclusions

the nuclear industry's estimate of at least $50 billion. The damage estimates ate based in part on the expectation that DoE would begin accepting spent fuel from coiltxactholders in 2010. The actual damages could be higher or lower, depending on when DOE begins accepting spent

range widely from the Department' s estimate of $2 billion to $3 billion to

of potential damages for the estimated 12-year delay from 1998 to 2010

steps, such as public hearings and obtaining NRC's sufficiency comments, that are required for the Secretary to make a site recommendation in the
guidelines, a site recommendation and a license application will need to be based on essentially the same data. Furthermore, the act lays out a process with specific time frames that requires DOE to submit a license application to NRC within about 5 to 8 months after the President makes a site reconm\endation to the Congress. DOE's contractor estimates that it will not have 3ll of the additional information that NRC has said. will needed for an acceptable license application for another 4 years. Waiting until DOE is closer to submitting a license application for the additional information would put DOE in a position to be able to submit a license application that is acceptable to NRC within the time frames set out in ,the law, and to be able to better respond to questions and challenges that may emanate from the statutory review process subsequent to the President's recommendation.
near future. Making a site recommendation at this time, however, maybe preniatltre. Under the Nuclear WaSte Policy Act and DOE' s siting

In addition to studying the Yucca Mountain site, DOE is taking the other

Page 22

0029

GAO-O2- f91

~uclear Waste