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

,'"

.'
Document 309-4 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

. the
.of

m.ovement

.of

radi.oactive material through the repositmy in the event

a release .ofthis, material;
.of

the effect

volcanic activity .on the repository; and

the c.ombined effects

of heat) water, and chemical pr.ocesses in and around the tunneis where the waste containeIS would be placed

According to' ,?ffi~als in D9E' s ,repository project .om~, the am.ount.of
ClllTOOt scieI.ltWc
unceItaiDty within each .of .of

these areas vanes. Far

water under natural c.onditi.ons thr.ough the area. where the repository w.ould be located is relatively well u.qderstood. In c.ontrast, there is-much mare current uncertainty about haw the
CX3Iuple,
the flaw c.ombinati.on .of

heat, water, and chemical processes caused by the

presence .of m~clear waste, in the .reposit.ory w.ould affect the flaw .of water

through the repositoiy.
i")
, The NRC staffs
c.oncerns .over the

supp.orting inf.ormati.on far the

, mathematical m.odelsthat DOE w.ould use as its primary tool far assessing the perf.om1ance of the rep.osit.ory revolved primarily ar.ound validating the , m.odels arid verifying the inf.ormati(ln use~ in the models. Perf.om1ance
assessment is an analytical meth.od that relies .on c.omputers t.o .operate mathematical models to assess the perf.ormance .ofthe rep.osit.ory against , EP A's health and safety standards, NRC' slicensing regi..tlati.ons, and DOE' guidelines far determin.i.ng if the Yucca M.ountain site Js suitable far a rep.osit.ory. DOE uses thedatac.oUected during site characterizati.on . activities to model haw a repository system , compriSing bath natural and engineered features, w.ould perf.orm at the Yucca M.ountain site~ Same .of DOE' s mathematical mOdels describe the behavi.or .of individuai phYsical and chemical processes, such as haw, qUickly water might travel fr.om: the 'Surface to the reposit.ory. DOE then links the results .of these indiVidual m.odels t.ogether into a computer model represetiting the perf.om1ance .of the .overaU rep.ositOry system. DOE then uses this madel, caned a

"perf.ormance assessment madel , or to estimate the release
fr.on~ a rep.ository under
a range .of c.onditi.ons and .over th.ousands

.of

radioactivity .of years.

The m.odel als.o enables DOE to f.orecast the dose .of radiation to hypothetical peIS.ons living in tlie vicinity .of the rep.osit.ory and compare
them with EP A's

health and safety standards. DOE's agreements with NRC are centered .on validating the models-presenting inf.ormati.on to pr.ovide

confidence that the models are valid for their intended use-and verifying the inf.orn1ati.on that has been con~~cted during the site investigation and
used in these m.odels.

In additi.on to the NRC st.affs c.oncerns ab.out DOE' s m.odels , NRC' Advisory Committee .on Nuclear Waste has raised c.oncerns about the

Page 10

0017

GA.o- O2- 1M Nuclear Waste

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 2 of 11

adequacy of the performance assessment m.odel that DOE l1sedto support the inf.ormation discussed in'the technical documents it has issued to
September 18, 2001 , letter to the support a site recommendati.on. chairman .of NRC, the c.ommittee c.oncluded that the model did n.ot provide a Pasis fQr estimating performance and did n.ot inspire c.onfidence ill the modelirig process. The c.ommittee s c.onclusi.ons were based .on its c.oncern
1 In a

that the modelii:tg
b~

is guided))y an inc.onsi~nt set of ass~npti.onS, including a mixture .of
c.onseIVative and n.onc.onservative b.ounding assumpU.ons, that d.on.ot represent realistic c.onditi.ons c.omputati.ons and analyses that d.o n.ot relies .on many assumpti.onsupp.ort .or link the .assumpti.ons with available evidence.
AccOrding t.o the directOr .of DOE's reposit.ory pt.oject .office, the additi.onal w.ork surr.ounding the 293 agreementS wi~ NRC's staff is an insignificant additi.on t.o the extensive anl.ount.of teclmical w.ork already c.ompleted. M.oreover, this .official , d.oes not expect that c.ompleting the additi.onal technical w.ork win change DOE' s current perf.ormance assessmei1t .of a repository at Yu~a M.ountain. Als.o , in commenting .on. a draft.of .our rep.ort, DOE stated that it has compiled an en.orm.ous b.ody .of scientific and technic3I work over the last 2 decades including s.ome, 6oo papers cited in , .one .of the recently published reports. The Department also cited a substautial b.ody .of analytic literatUre it has published in recent years.
FrOm NRC' s perspective, h.owever, the agreements provided the b asis far it 1;.0give DOE, as required by the Nuclear Waste P.olicy Act, its preliminaIY c.omments .on the sufficiency.of DOE's inve$tigati.on.of the Yucca M.ountain site f.orinclusi.on,inafuture license applicati..or( In a N.ovember 13, 2001, letter 1..0 the Under Secretary .of Energy, the Chairman .of tIle NRC
c.ommented that

~d

,

lallthough significant additional work is needed prior to the submission of a possible license application , we believe Utat agreetl\enls reached between DOE and NRC staff

. The conunittee, established by NRC to advise it on nucl~'\C waste regulatory issues

, comprises experts in several disciplines, including risk assessment. s DoE mentioned its Viability Assessment (1998). Pl"elimimllY Sit:e Suitability E\'~luation (200 1). Supplemental. Science and Perfonnance Analyses (200 I), Draft; Environmental
Impact Statement (1999), and Supplement 10 the draft EIS (2001).

Page 11

GA.o- O2- 1~1 'fiIudear Waste

0018

, ,

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 3 of 11

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

development of an acceptableJiC('nse

M1PU~ation is achievable.

The NRC Chairman' s letter als.o pointed .out that NRC's Advis.ory Committee .on Nuclear Waste n.oted, similar to the NRC staff, that substantial additi.onal wQrk by DOE is needed pri.oJ;' to'its submissi.on of a

license applic~.on.
rep.ort 19 the Congress and Secretary .of Energy in l990, the Board has c.onsistently raised issues and concerns .over DOE' understanding .of the expected lifetime .of the ~aSte c.oriwneIS , the significance .of the uncertatnties inv.olved in the m.odeling .of the scientific data, and the need far an evaluati.on and comparis.on (if a repoSitory desigll having' a higher temperature with a des~ having a l.ower temperature. The Board c.ontinues to reiterate these ,concerns in correspondence t.o DOE' s director .of the nuclear waste pr.ogram. and in iUi reports to the Congress and the Secretary .of Energy. Far example, in an August 2000 letter to the Subc.ommittee .on Energy and P.ower, Hause Committee .on Conm1erce, the B.oard rep.orted that the technical basis far DOE's l.ongterm projecti.ons .of repository perf9rmance had "critical weaknesses. " The B.oard explained that same .of the large uncertainties about the prop.osed . rep.ository s perf.omumce .ove~ th.ousands .of years-including the estimated c.oi:Tosi.on rat.es .of waste containers and predicted behavi.or .of the geol.ogic system-were greater at the higher temperatures that w.ould result frODi\ DOE's design .of the repository. At a January 2001 public meeting with DOE, the Board told DOE that to determine whether the Yucca M.ountain site is suitable far use as a repository, DOE must f.ocus its attenti.ori .on f.our~rl.ority issUes: (1) quantifYing the Uncertatnties in the

Since its

~t

models Used to estimate therep6Sitory s perf.orinance; (2) gaining a
further undeIStanding .of the processes related t.o the c.orr.osi.on .of waste c.ontainers; (3) evaluating and c.omparing a rep.osit.ory design having a

higher temperature with a design that has a l.owertemperature; and
(4) devel.oping evidence .other than perf.ormance assessment m.odeling to support the estimates .of repository perf.onnance.

In Oct.ober 2001 , theB.oard rep.orted that, despite DOE's pr.ogress in resp.onding t.o the B.oard' s c.oncerns, gaps in data and analyses mak~
evaluati.on .of DOE's technical bases.on whether t.o rec.ommend the site mare difficult The B.oard provided several examples .of these gaps. First

the B.oard n.ot.ed that DOE has n.ot yet c.ompleted a t.omparis.on , pr.omised in a May 30 2001, letter t.o the B.oard, between a high-temperature and a

low.t.emperature repository desigIt The B.oard explained that a design with a l.ower temperature has the p.otential to reduce the level .of

Page 12

0019

GAO- O2- 191 -Nuclear Waste

"..",

, ,

.~

,.
Document 309-4 Filed 04/16/2004 Page 4 of 11

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

uncertainty in DOE's modeling results. Sec.ond, DOE d.oes n.ot appear to

have implemented the Board' s suggesti.on, made in two previ.ous letteIS to
DOE, to examine more cl.osely the c.ontributi.on that each piece .of natural

and engineered barrieIS makes to the repository s .overaII perf.onnance. Third, the BOard .observed tbatDOE had n.ot presented ac1ear and

impo~t issue .of the potential c.onsequenceS to the repository frOm. v.olcanic activity. Last, the Board asked that) if th~ . analyses referred t.o in the letter w.ould n.ot be aVailable before DOE' decisi.on .on whether ,to recommend the site to the President"DOE provide its rationale exp~ng why the, analyses are n.ot import.ant far ~i~e
resolving the

peISUasive rati.onale far g.oing f.otward with a site rec.onub.endatl.on bef.ore

recommendation as well as any plans far subsequently conducting the
w.ork if the site were recommended and appr.oved far rep.osit;ory

devel.opment.

:...J

Recent rep.orts to' DOE by the U.s. Ge.ological Survey and an juternati.onal peer review team pr.ovide further insights into DOE' s site investigation. An

October 2001 letter Cram the U. S. Geol.ogical Survey (USGS), which has long played an active r.ole hi the site investigati.on, stated that the scientific w.ork petf.onned t.o date supports a decisi.on t.o recommend the site far

development as a rep.ository. However, US~S qmilified its positi.on by
n.oting that it was 'c.ommenting .only within the scope .of its earth science expertise and was neutral regarding .other inf.ormati.on the Secretary might c.onsider. USGS als.o painted .out that additi.ona1 studies need to be perf.ormed even after a site rec.onm\endati.on.

In November 2001 an international peer review panel released an executive summai:y .ofthe results .ofits review .of DOE's perf.orrnarice , assessment inodeling far a potential site recommendati.on. 'l'he panel
which perf.ormed the review at DOE' s request, was .organized by the Nuclear Energy Agency .of the Orgal1izati.on far Economic Cooperati.on and .

. Devel.opment and the Internati.onal Atomic Energy Agency .of the United Nati.ons. The panel did n.ot comment.on the results .of DOE' s modeling
, efforts but found that DOE' s meth.od.ol.ogy is s.oundly baSed and implemented in a c.ompetent inanner. Ov'ernA, the panel stated , DOE' appr.oach pr.ovides an adequate basis far supp.orting a statement .on likely c.ompliance within the regulatoly peri.od .of 10 000 years and far a site rec.ommendati.ondecisi.on. The panel als.o qualified itS findings, h.owever by stating that the findings were based .on a brief review and n.ot an

in-depth analysis. The panel als.o called far a number.of impr.ovements in DOE' s appr.oach t.o perf.orn1ance assessment, hlcluding dem.onstrating an
understanding .of the behavi.or .of the .overall rep.ository system rather than

Page 13

GA.o- O2- 19.1 Nuclear Waste

0020

:~.,:' , '. ;./) " .;;/ '"

,'

;,

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 5 of 11

f.ocusing.on the

numerical results .of the assessment, and identifying and

treating al. types .of uncertainty in the m.odeling. '

As recently ~ May 2001 , DOE pwjeeted that it c.ould submit a license
applicati,.on to

~C in 2003. It n.ow appealS, h.owever, that DOE may not

w.orkthatit has3greed to d.o to prepare an acceptable license ~plicati.on until January 2006~ In September 2001, B~h.td ,c.oriiple~, at DOE's directi.on, a. detailed r~essment in eff.ort,to reestablish a cost and schedule baselin~ Bechtel ~timated that
DOE c.ould c.omplete the .outstanding technical w.ork agreed to with NRC was based and submit a license applicati.on in January 2006. This

c.omplete all .of the additi.onal tec~cal

~ate

.on guidance from DOE that, fu pari:, directed the can tractor t.o assume

~ua1 fUnding far the nuclear waste pr.ograI1.1 .of $410 milli.on in fisCal year 2002, $455 million 'in fiscal y~ 2003 , and $465 milli.on in fIScal year 2004 ~d thereafte;f~ DOE has n.ot accepted this estiinate because, according to
licenSe appIicati.on tOo far into the future. Instead ,

program .officials, the estimate would extend the date far submitting a
~J

DOE is n.ow c.onsidering accepting .only the fiscal year 2002 p.orti.on .of Bechtel's detailed w.ork plan and requesting Bechtel to prepare an.other w.ork plan far fIScal year 2003 through submissi.on.of a license applicati.on.

Essentially the Same Infonnation Is Needed for, : a Site RecoffiIIlendation 3Ild a License Application

Under the Nuclear Waste P.olicy Act and DOE' s site suitability guidelines while the site ree.ommendati.on and a license appUcati.on are separate

prOCesses, DOE Will need t.o use essentially the same data far bath.

Further, site recommendati.on and license applicati.on are connected by
law with speCific timeframes that require DOE to submit a license. applicati.on to NRC within ab.out 5 to 8 m.onths .once the President
c.onsideIS the site qualified far a license

applicati.ol1 and makes a site

rec.ommendati.on to the C.ongress.
Under the act, DOE' s site characterization activities are t.o provide inf.onnati.on necessary t.o evaluate the Yucca M.o1intain site' s suitability far

submitting a license applicati.on to NRC far placing a rep.ository at the site. In implementing the ~ct, DOE's guidelines pr.ovide that the site will be suitable as a waste rep.ositorY if the site is likely to meet the radiati.on
ptotecti.on Standards that NRC w.ould use to reach a licensing decisi.on .on the prop.osed rep.ository. Thus , as stated in the preamble (il1tr.oducti.on) to DOE' s guidelines, DOE expects to use essentially the same data far the site rec.ommendati.on and the license applicatibn. '

In additi.on , the act speCifies that) having received a site rec.ommendatl.on
Cram the Secretary, the President shall submit a rec.ommendati.on

.of the

Page 14

0021

GA.o-O2- 1:J1 'Nuclear WRSte

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 6 of 11

~:;'l

site to the Congress if the President c.onsiders the site qualified far a license applicati.on. Under the process laid .out , in the Nuclear Waste
P.olicy Act, .once the Secretary makes a sit.e rec.ommendati.on, there is ria time limit ,under which the ~ident must act .on the Secretary's recommen~.on. ~owever, .once the President makes a recommendatl.on
, 0

to the Congress that it aPprove the site, specific statutory time frames are triggered far the next steps iit the process. Figure 1 sh.ows the ' apPr9ximate statutory, time needed between a site~commendati.on and submission of a. license aPpliCation and the additi.onal. time l1eeded far"

DOE to meet the c.onditi.ons far an accep~le license applicati.on. Far illustrative purp.oses, figure 1 asst1ffies that the SecretarY f~.ommends the site to the President.on January 30, 2002 and the, President reconunends the site to the ' C.ongress6 m.onths later .on July 30, 2002., The figure als.o

1\

assumes t;pat Nevada disappr.ov~ the ~te but that the Congress' .overrides the state'sdisapproVai. As shawn in the figure, Nevada haS 60 days to disappr.ove the site, and if disappr.ovedJ the Congress h~ 90 days (.of
c.ontinu.ouS sessi.on) in which to enact legislati.on .overriding the state' disappr.oval. If the Congress .overrides the state' s disappr.oval. and the site

designati.on takes effect, the next st.ep is far the secretary to submit a
license applicati.on t.o NRC within 90 days after the site designati.on is effective. On the basis .of Bechtel's latest prog~ reaSsessment, 'DOE w.ould bein ap.ositi.on to submit a Hcense applicati.on to NRC in January

2006.
the President.

t.o 240daysJ .or ab.out 5 . 8n1.onths Cram the time. the President makes a ret.ommendation to DOE'
These statutory time frames provide about 150

Submittal .of a license appliCatl.on. DOE, h.owever, will oat be ready to file 1t an acceptable applicati.on with NRC far severai years. (See fig. 1.) , Therefore, the Secret.ary .of Energy sh.ould consider the timing .of this

statutory pr.ocess ashe decides when t.o make a site rec.ommendati.on to

0 In the congressional conference report on fiscaL year 2002

appropriations for energy and

water development-the conferees stated that they expect DOE to deliver the final site reconunendalion report and emironmental. ilhpact stat~ment 1:0 the Congn~ss by Feb. 28.

2002. They recognized tlmt certain sdentlJ1c and engineering work is directly related to the

site s l'ecommendation and to resolving technical concerns of NRC and the Board , and that such work should not automatically temtinate upon submission of the site reconunendatiou.. H. R.Rep. No. 107-258, all22 (2001).

Page 15

GA.o-O2. 1~n -Nuclear Waste

0022

,'

!:\~..
.....

.'

~~~~: ""; '
~. . :.

. ,. ' .

..., '"

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

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 7 of 11

, Agure 1: Comparison of Statutory Site Approval Process With DOE' s Projected Schedule
statutory time
(about 5 to 8 months.)

Addlllonal tlme needed to meet agreements

January 2002 .

. Janua

Y 2006

::if
:.ktt!t6

;'i

r'

J.'
!3j;a~

. No prescribed statutory lime frame.
90 calendar days of .continuous session or the CongreSs.

DOE Is Unlikely Open a Repository in
2010

, DOE; in a document thatw.ould sup part a p.otential site recommendati.on
states that it may be able to .open a repository at Yucca Mountain in 2010.

This expectation is predicated .on the submissi.on .of a license applicati.on
to NI:tC in 2003, rec~pt.of
the c.o~cti.onauth.orizati.on in 2006 ,

as Planned

and

underground facilities to begin putting wastes into the rep9sitoryin 2010. H.owever, according to , Bechtel's SepteJ.nber 200 1 detailed reassessment .of tOO nuclear waste program, in which it pt.op.osed to reestablish a baseline far the pr.ogram, a mare realiStic date far submitting the license applicati.on may be J anumy 2006. Reestablishing the program' s baseline is necessary because DOE st.opped using the baseline to manage the program in March 1997. Since then, progriunofficials have used revised estimates for the license applicati.on
construction.of en.ough surface and

date in vari.ous int.ernal and external rep.orts, but n.one .of these changes

were appr.oved as required and the program s cost and schedule baseline
has never been revised to reflect these changes. As a result, DOE d.oes n.ot have a baseIineestimate .of the pr.ogranl s schedule and cast that is based .on all the w.ork that it expect') to complete thr.ough the submissi.on .of

license applicati.on. Because .of uncertainty .over when DOE may be able to
.open the rep.ositOlY, the

Department is expl.oring alternatives that might
spent fuel in 2010.

still pemut it to begin accepting c.onm1ercial

Page 16

GA.o-O2- WI-Nuclear Waste

0023

. ;,\ -

, ,

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 8 of 11

..J

DOE' s Curr~nt License'

In its mast recent tep.ort.on the progran1 s estimated

DOE stat.es that

Application Milestone Date
Is

Not Supported by the

Program' s Baseline

The 2003 date was n.ot f.onnally approved by DOE' s ~niormanagers.or incorporated into the program s cost and schedule baseti,ne, as requifed by , the management procedures that were in effect f~r the program. At

it expects to submit the applicati.on to NRC in 2003. 1!' Thjs date reflects a delay in the license aPplicati.on milestone date laSt appr.ovedby DOE in March 1997 that targeted March 2002 far submitting a license applicati.on.

l~~

three exteRsj.ons far t~e license applicati.o~ date have been pr.opose.d, but
n.one .of the three

proposals: have been approved as required.

DO E d~~1ates same of its pr.ograms and projects , such as the n11clear waste prdgram, t.o receive special attenti.on tram seni.or DOE manageIS

casts .of the pr.ograms and .of the c.omplexity .or projects. DOE's guidance for managing thes.e designated programs , and pr.ojects requires, am.ong .other things, that seni.or manag~IS establish a
because

~ated

i:'

describes the aseline f.ormimaging the pr.ogram .or project. The program s missi.on-in this case , the safe disp.osal .of highly radi.oactive waste in a ge.ol.ogic rep.ository-and the expected technical requirements
schedule,. and cost to c.omplete the pr.ogram. Procedures far
can trolling

b~e

changes t.o an approved baseline are designed to ensure that program
manageIS c.ol1sider the expected ,effectS of adding, deleting, .or modifying technical w.ork, as well as the effects .of unanticipated events, such as fundin'g sh.ortfalls, .on the project' s missi.on and baseline. In this way,

alternative c.ourses .of acti.oncan be assessed .on the basis .of each action p.otential effect .on the base.Jjne. DOE' s pr.ocedures for managing the , nucl~waste program require tlui.t pr.ogran1 managerS revise the b~eUne

as appr.opriate, to reflect any significant changes to the program. ,
After March 1997, acc.ordiug to DOE .offici3ls they did u.ot always foll.ow
these c.ontrol pr.ocedures t.o acCount for prop.osed changes to the pr.ogram s baseline, induding the dumges pr.oposed t.o extend the date far liceI)Se applicati.on. Acc.ordiItg to these saine .officials, they stopped . f.oU.owing the c.ontr.ol pr.ocedures becauSe the Secretary.of Energy did n.ot, approve pr.oposed extensi.ons t.o the license applicati.ol1 milestone. As a result, the .official baseline did n.ot accurately reflect the pi:.o~l s cost and schedule to c.omplete the remaining w.ork necessary to submit a license applicati.on.

10 See

Anal:ysis of Ute Tolal System Life Cycle Cost of lile Citoflian RadWad.i't'e Waste
(DOEIRW-O53-j, May 200 1).

M(lnagemc'll Program,

Page 17

0024

GA.o-oZ- l91 Nuclear Waste

, .." " '

. '

, ,

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 9 of 11

In N.ovember 1999, the YuccaM.ountain site investigation .office proposed
extending the license applicati.on milestone date by'10 m.onths, froIq March to December 2002, to c.ompensate far a $57.8 milli.on drop in

funding far fiscal year 2000. Acc.ording, to the sp~ific management procedures ~.hat DOE adapted far the ,nuclear waste pr.ogram,a prop.osed extensi.on in the li~nse applicati.on milestone required the-approval .of bath the Dire~r.of the, nuclear waste program and the Secretary' .of . Energy. Neither of these officialS ~proved this propo.Sed change n.or was , the baseline reVised to reflect this change even th.ol1gh the subsequently began reporting the Decanber 2002 date in quarterly perf.ormance reports to the Deputy Secretary.of Energy.

Director

Less than a year later, in September 2000, the site investigati.on .office .once exte.nsi.on to ~he license. applicati~n milestone to July . again pr.oposed 2003 becaUse' Qf reduced funding and added iech~~a1: work. Then, in
February 200 1 , the site investigati.on.offic~ proposed an.other extensi.on in the milestone, to December 2003. As with the N.ovember 1999 ext.ensi.on request, neither the Director .of the nuclear waste program n.or the Secretary .of Energy approved either .of the latter tw.o req1i~ n.or was either extensi.on date far the license applicati.on milestone inc.orp.orated

, into the baseline f.or, the pr.ogram. Furthenuore~ as with the November 1999pr.oposed change, DOE began to use the- unappr.oved milestone dates

in both internal and exterria1 rep.orts aud c.onmmnications. For example, the Director used the unapproved 2003 date far submitting a license' applicati.on twice in c.ongressi.onal testin1.o1t~ in May 2001. Later, in a September 2001 mem.orandum t.o the DOE Under Secretary discussing the g.oaIs .of the nuclear waste program thr.ougb. January 2005, the Director established 2004 ~ his g.oai far submitting a license aPplicati.on. '
Be-cause seni.or manageIS did not appr.ove these prop.osed changes for inc.orporati.on int.o the baseline far the pr.ogram. program n~anagers did n.ot
adjust the pr.ogrcim

s cost and schedule baseline. By n.ot acc.ounting far these and .otl..ter changes to the pr.ogram s technical w.ork;milestone dates and estimated costs in the program s baseline since Match 1997, DOE has .of all .of the technical w.ork that it expected t.o n.ot had baseline estimates

Page 18

0025

GAO-O2- Ull

~l1clear Waste

~;)

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 10 of 11

c.omplete through submissi.on

a license appIicati.on and the estimated schedule and cost to complete this W.orkll
.of

When, Bechtel was contracted to manage thenuclearwastepr.ogram, .one of its fiprt as&gn~tents was t.o document the remaining technical work that had to be c.ompleted to supp.ort the submissi.on .of a Iice~ appIicati.on

and to estimate the time and cost to complete this work The c.ontractor revised, unofficial baseline far the program sh.ows that it Will take until
January 2006 to c.omplete essenti31 technical w.ork and submit an acceptable license applicati.on. DOE also estimated that completfug the
remaining technical w~rk w.ould add about $1.4 billi.on to the cumulative

cast .of the program, bringing the total cast .of the YuccaM.ountain project' s porti.on .of the nucle~waste pr.ogram to $5. 5 billion,. ~ AS noted ab.ove, DOE-has n.ot~cCepted Bechtel's prop.osed new baseline extending
.out until January 2006. Instead,~E is considering accepting, at present Qnly that p.orti.on .of the baseline that ;Bechtel pr.oposed t.o c.omplete in
fIScal year 2002,

Extension

of

License

Application Dat~ Will

AD. extensi.on .of the license applicati.on date to 2006 w.ould a)m.ost certainly preclude DOE from achieving its l.ong-:-standing g.oal .of .opening a

likeJy Postp(me2010
" ' Repository Goal

reposit.ory in 2010. Acc.ordingto DOE' s May 2001 rep.ort.on the program
estimated cast, after submitting a license applicati.on in 2003, DOE estimates that it c.ould receive an auth.orizati.on t.o c.onstruct the rep.osit.ory in 2006 and, complete the constructi.on.of enough surface and underground facilities to .open the rePCIsitory in 2010, .or 7 years after submitting the license applicati.on. This 7 ~year estimate fr.om submittal .of the license
assumes that NRC w.ould grant an authorlzati.on to construct tbe facility in 3 years, f.oil.owed by 4 years .of constructi.on. AsSuming these sante esti.IDates .of time, subInitting a license applicati.on in 'January 2006 w.ould

applicati.on to the initial ,construction

and .operati.onofthe repository

extend the .opening date far the rep.ositOry until about

2013.

It In 1998 and 2000, independent cost and sched.tde revie'lo\'S of the program we"re penom\(~d
by DOE contractors. On the latta- review, the contractOr concluded that DOE's schedule
.lm'licensing, COIL'itrucling,

and openingtbe reposit.ory by 2010 was optimiStic by about

2 years and that DOE's estimate o.lthe total costo.lthe program over its lOO-plus-year

Iifetime-$58 billion (2000 doUars)-was understated by about $3 billion.
11 DOE estimated that the program cost .$4. 1 dollars from the program s inception in 1983
. January 2006.
billion ,

Uu-oUgh l\larch 2002. l1le $5. 5

on the basis of year-o.l-cXpenditure biUion estimate

for the license application is based on year-of-cxpenditure dollars from 1983 through

Page 19

0026

GA.o..oz- nH 'Nuclear Waste

,",, .

, , ,. ,. ' , '
... .

'

, '

Case 1:98-cv-00474-JFM

Document 309-4

Filed 04/16/2004

Page 11 of 11

Furthenn.ore, .opening the repository in 2013 may be questi.onable far several reas.ons. First, a. repository at Yucca M.ountain w.ould be a fiISt-ofkind facility, meaning that any schedule ,projections may be .op~.imistic. DOE has defe1Ted its .original target date far .opening a repositolY from, 1998' t.o 2003 to 2010. Sec.ond, alth.ough the Nuclear Waste P.oli~ Act states
that NRC has 3 YeaIS to decide .on a c.onstructl.on license, a. f.ourth year

may be added if NRC certifies tbat it is necessary~ Third,' the 4-year tin\e period far cPnStrucu.on that DO~s current schedule anows Cram the ~tiance .of a c.onstructi.on ' auth.orizati.on t.o the 9perting of the repository
may be too ,shaft. Far example, a c.ontractor hited by DO~' to

'

independ~ntly review the estim3.ted costs and schedule for the nt\c1ear waste pr.ogran1 reported that the '4-year c.onstructi.on periOd was too
.optin1istic and cec.ommende9 that the construction phase be extended by

year-and.,a.-haJf. \3 Bechtel anticipates a 5-year period of c.onstructi.on
between the ,receipt .of a c.onstruction auth.orizati.on from NRC to the .opening .of the rep.ository. Thus, .on the bases .of a 4-year licensing peri.od

te~ to .open until ab.out 2015 it DOE d.oes n.ot apply far a license until
January 2006.

and a 5-year peri.od far initial c.onstruction, the repository might n.ot be '

Finally, these simple projecti.ons do n.ot acc.omit far apy .otller factors that ~.ould adversely affect this 7- to 9-year sclieduIe far licensing,' c.onstrocting,

, and openIng the rep.ository. Annual appr.opriations far the pr.ogram in
recent years have been less than $400 milli.on. In c.ontrast, aec.ording to DOE, it needs between $750 ~11iUionto $.1.5 billi.on in annual appropriati.ons during mast .of the 7- to 9-year licensing aI).d constnicti.on period ii, .order to .open the reposit.ory .on that schedule. In its August 2001 rep.oJ;t on alternative means for financirig and managing the program, DOE stated that lmless the prograin s funding is increase~ the budget might become the "detennining factor" whether DOE win be able t.oaccept wastes in 2010.

14

13 See

Independent C.(Mt Estimate
JIUernatil:e Moolls oJ

Rcttie!.fJ

oJ the CfIJUia,t RadiocfC(;i.tJ('. Wa$fe A-fanage11lent
(Jan. 2001).

P:rogrmn, 2001 T(Jtal,~Y$le1n
H See

Life Cyde Co:;t

Financing and Managing the Civilian Radioac.tit'C Waste

ManagettW.IIJ, Progmm

(DOEtRW-O546, Aug. 2001).

Page 20

0027

GA0-02- 1ll1 "Nuclear Waste