nuclear waste management docx

BGA Oe GAO Highlights ain of 0-10-49, apa Why GAO Did This Study gh tovel nuclear wasto—one of Sahstances is accu at 8 Sites 9 aten The Unie States ha generated 70,000 metre tons of rie

GAO United States Government Accomntability Office Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2009 NUCLEAR WASTE

MANAGEMENT

Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs

for the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential

Alternatives

GAO-10-48

BGA Oe GAO

Highlights

ain of 0-10-49, apa

Why GAO Did This Study

gh tovel nuclear wasto—one of

Sahstances is accu at 8)

Sites 9 aten The Unie States

ha generated 70,000 metre tons of

rielear waste and is expected to

fenerate 159,000 metric tons by iss, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act

‘198, as amend, requtes the

Departient of Energy (DOE) ta

spose of the waste na geo

epesitory at Yea Mount

sot 10 miles northwest of Las

Wega, Nevada However, the

repniton is more than a deade

Tchind sehe-hle si 1he núcar

sane generally remains tthe

‘Sommercia nuclear reactor sites

nd DOE ste where ftw

sera

‘This report examines the key

ltt challenges, and costs of

the Yucca Mountain sepostory and

te two principal atematves toa

‘management experts Mente:

Storing the nuclear wast ato

‘entaize Ioeaion mới

ontiang toe the wast on

Site where twas generated CAO

ranges for cach ateratve using

‘component coat estates provided bythe rsclear waste management

txperts However, GAO di not

compare these alternatives Because

tsi iflerences in theie

innrent characteristics hat cout

ot be quantified

{AO is making no

‘recommendations in ths report In

wate comments, DOE al NRC

seer agreed with the oper

NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT

Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs of the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential Alternatives

What GAO Found

“The Yucca Mountain repository is designed to provide a permanent solution for managing nuclear waste, mininge the uncertainty of future waste safety, and enable DOE to begin ulin its egal obligation under Une Nuclear Wash Policy Act to tako custody of commercial waste, which hogan in 1908

However, project delays have fed to uit lawsults that DOE estimates are

‘costing taxpayers about $12.9 ion in damages through 2020 and could cost

‘$500 rnin por year alter 202, though the outcome of pensation may fot the governments total ability, Also, the amination has announced plans to terminate Yucea Mountain and seek alteratves Bven if DOE

‘ones the programy, it must obtain a Nuclear Regulatory Corsston onsiuction an operations license, a proces likely tobe delayed by bulge Shontals GAO's analysis of DOB's cost projections found that a repository to

“lspose of 163000 metre toss would coat rom $4 billion to $67 billion (1

200 present vale) era 115 ar peti unt the repository closed, [Nuclear power rate payers would pay about 80 pereent of these costs and taxpayers would pay about 20 percent

‘sing billions of dollars in Hable, However, DOE's statitorysathoriy to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and fing a state willing 0 host a faclity could be extremely challenging In addon, centralized storage does

‘ot provide for final waste disposal, so uc of the Waste wonM be transported twice to reach its final destination, Using cost data from exports, {GAO estimated the 200 present value cost of centralized storage of 153.000

‘mete tons tthe end of 100 years to range fom $15 billon to 20 Dillon but fncreasng to Between $25 bilon and S81 billion wil nal geolose disposal

On-site storage would provide an altemative requiring ltl change fom the Sarus quo, but would face increasing challenges ove ine It would also allow {ime for consideration of final disposal options The adiional ime in onsite Storage would make the waste safer to handle, reducing risks when waste is {tansported fr final disposal However, the government tually t take custo ofthe waste, especaly al operating mclear reactor sites, which

‘oul sulin significant financial libiies that would increas over tine

‘Not taking custody could also intensify public opposition to spent uel storage site renewals and reactor license extensions, particulary with no plan in place for final waste disposition In adition, extended onsite orage could

Inteoduce possibe sks tothe safety and security ofthe waste asthe storage systems degrade and the waste decays potentially requiring new maintenance find security measures, Using cost dala fromm experts GAO estate he 2000 present value cost of onsite storage of 15,000 metric tons atthe end of 100,

‘ears to range from $13 billon fo $2 bill but increasing ta between $20, Bint S07 billion with final geal dsposa

Usted Stes Goverment AecountabtyOnee

We Identified Two Nuclear Waste Management Aleratives and Developed Cost Models by Consulting with Experts

Centralized Storage Would Provide a Near-Term Alernatve

‘Allowing Other Optlons co Be Studied, but Faces Implementation Challenges

On-Site Storage Would Provide an Intermediate Option with Minimal Eifort but Poses Challenges that Could Inerease Over Tine

Concluding Observations Agency Comments

‘Appendix I

‘Appendix IT

Scope and Methodology

Our Methodology for Obtaining Comments from Nuclear Waste Management Experts 0

‘Modeling Methodology, Assumptions, and Results

~ Comments from the Department of Energy

‘Appendix VIT ‘GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

reset (©N0.10.48 Nectar Wane Management

Tables

‘Table I: Estimated Cost of the Yucca Mountain Scenarios 19

‘Table? Key Assumptions Used to Define Alternatives 2

‘Table 3: Models and Scenarios Used for Cost Ranges 2

‘Table 4: Bstimated Cost Range for Bach Centralized Storage

Scenario at

‘Table 6: Estimated Cost Range for Each Onsite Storage Scenario 3)

‘Table 6: Our Data Colletion Instrument for Nuclear Waste

Management Experts 0

‘Table 7: Initial Assumptions and Component Cost Estimates for

(Our Centralized Storage and On-site Storage Alternatives

‘and Modifications Made Based on Experts’ Responses to

‘ur Data Collection instrament 2 Table 8: Model Results forall Scenarios n

Figures

Figure 1: Curent Storage Sites and Proposed Repository fr High

Level Nuclear Waste Figure & Aerial View and Cut-Out of the Yucea Mountain Repository 6 igure 3: Dry Cask Storage System for Spent Nuclear Fuel 8 igure 4: Cost Profile forthe Yucca Mountain Repository,

Assuming 70,000 Metric Tons 20 Figure 5 Process Assimptions and Cost Components for

Hypotheteal Nuclear Waste Management Alternatives 25 Figure 6 Scenario and Cost Time Frames forthe Centralized

159,000 Metric Ton Models or Figure 7- Scenario and Cost Time Frames forthe Centralized 70,000

Metrie Ton Mode! 8 Figure Scenarios and Cost Time Frames forthe OnSite 158,000,

Metsie Ton Models 0 Figure Scenario and Cost Time Frames forthe OnSite 70,000

Metric Ton Model m Figure 16: Total Cost Ranges for Centralized Storage for 100 Years

with Final Disposition nm igure 1: Total Cost Ranges for Onsite Storage for 100 years with

Final Disposition m Figure 12: Total Cost Ranges of On-Site Storage over2,000 Years TH

tien pc g ạ

‘ou ut peascn fh GRO arr ner fs wo ay ta ecteser you wah optics ie mato eepxrte

& GAO

Tnieed States Gove

Washington, Dt vent Accountabiliy Office

‘The current national policy of constructing 8 federal repository to dispose

‘ofthis waste at Yueea Mountain-—which is about 100 niles northwest of

Ls Vegas, Nevada—has already been delayed more chan x decile Asa

‘esl, nuclear waste generally remains atthe sites where it was generated Experts and regulators believe the nuclear waste, properly stored and rmonicored, canbe kept safe and secure on-site for decades; but

‘commis across the couey have rise concerns abont the wastes Jedhal nature and the possibility of natural disaster or terrorism,

‘articlarly at sites neat whan centers ot sources of drinking water, Industry has aso raised concerns tat local communities will not sppoxt the expansion of dhe nuclear ener Industry widhout a final waste

‘ispasition pathway Many experts and conimunites view nuclear energy

as potential means of meeting future energy demands while reducing reliance on fosi fuels and eutting earbon emissions, a key conteibtor to

‘mate elanse

In ation tothe spent nuclear uel generated by commercial power reactors the Department of Energy (DOE) owns and manages about 19 percent ofthe nuclear waste—referred to as DOE- managed spent nuclear Mel and high-evel waste—which consists of spenf nuclear Niel fron power, research, and navy silpboard reactors, ad high-level nuclear

‘waste from te nation's nuclear weapons program (See fig | forthe locations where nuclear waste is stored.)

‘designated to permanently store commercial sent nucleat fel and DOE

‘managed spent nuclear fuel and hgh-Jevel waste, NWPA was amended in

1987 to diet DOE to evaluate only the Yueea Mountain site In 2002, the president recommended and the Congress approved the Yucea Mountain site as the nation’s geologie repository, The repository i intended to

tư CAO 1044 Nguy Na MAesgreree

Ân une 3005, DOF subyatted a license application ta the Nuclear Regulatory Cormission (NRC} for approval fo construct the repository In

“July 2008, DOE reported that its best achievable date for opening the

"repository, ifitreecives NRC approval, sin 2020 Delays in the Yucea

‘Momnsain repository have resuled ina need for continued storage ofthe

‘waste onsite leaving industry uncertain regarding the licensing of new nuclear power reactors and the nation uncertain regarding a fal disposition of tie waste

‘waste management strategy, which the administration sald could inelade

‘reprocessing or other complementary strategies, Inthis context, sou asked ws to identify key aspects of DOE'S nuclear

‘waste mangement program and other possible managemen: approaches Specially, you asked as to examine (1) the key atibites, challenges, Aad costs af the Ynecs Mountain repository (2) and entity alternarive nuclear waste management approaches; (2) the key atributes, challenges, and costs of storing the nuclear waste at two centralized sites andl (1 the key attributes, challenges, and costs of continue to store the nuclear

‘waste at is erent locations The centtalized storage and onsite storage

‘options—both with disposal seenarioswere the to most ike liesnative pproaches Mentified by the experts we interviewed, We are also providing information on what is known about sources of funding — primarily taxpayers and nuclear power rate payers—for te Yucca

‘Momnsain repository and the two atemative approaches

To exauine the key attributes challenges, and oss of the Yucea Mountain repository, we obtained reports and supporting documentation

Irom DOE, NRO, the National Academy øf Selenees,anđ (he Nuelear

‘Waste Technied Review Bose Specifically, we used DOE'S report on the

‘Yucca Mountain repository’ total ifeeyele cose co analyze te ost for ispasing of ether (1) 70.000 metric tons of naclesr waste, which isthe Statutory cap on the anount of waste that can be disposes of at Yucca Mountain, or (2) 153.000 metsie tons, whieh i the estimated total ammount

‘of nuclear waste that ha aleendy een generated and willbe generated if

al curently operating consmercil reactors operate fora B-vear expan

We then discounted these costs to 208 present value

‘To entity alternative nuclear waste managentent approaches, we Interviewed DOE offeials, experts atthe National Academy of Sciences and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Hoard and executives at the Nuclear Energy Institute among others Based on their comments, we entfed two generic allemative approaches for managing this waste for

Av lease a 100-year period before is disposed in a repository: staring the nuclear waste at bo centralized feliiesrefecred (o as centeaized stomge—und continuing to store te nuclear waste onsite at their current faelltiesrefezred 0 as onsite storage To examine the key antes, challenges, and casts of each alternative, we asked nuclear Waste rmanagennent experts from federal agencies dustry, academe stitutions, and concerned groups to comment on the atteibutes and challenges ofeach alternative, provide relevant cost dats, and comment on

‘the assumptions and cost components that we used to develop cost antes forthe alternatives We then used the models to produce the total

‘ost ranges foreach alterative with and without final disposal in 2

‘acologi repository atthe end of 100 year specific Lime period In adition, we analyzed onsite storage for longer periods than 100 years We analvzed costs assoriated with storing 70,000 metric tons and 153,000 nett cons and discounted che costs to 20 present vane

We ait not compare the Yucca Mountain cost range ta the ranges of other alternatives because of sgnifcant diferenees in inherent characteisies

‘ofthese alternatives that our modeling work could not quantity For

‘example, the safes, health, and environment ks foreach ate very tiferent hich needs to he considered in the poliey debate on riclear

‘vaste management decisions (See app I for adiional information about

‘our scope and methodology, app I or our methodology for soliciting

DO, A fie Fea St cp Cnt te Can Radiat We

‘eonelusions based on our audit objectives We belive that the evidence

‘obtained provides reasonable basis for out findings andl eanclasions

‘based on our aut objectives Nuclear waste is longlived and very hazardous without protective shiehũng the intense radioactivity ofthe waste can kil a person within Iminntes or cause cancer months or even decades after exposure Thus, caret management's required to isolate i from Humans and the ensironment To accomplish this, the National Academy of Sciences frst fendorsed the concept of nuclear waste disposal in deep geologic

formations ina 1957 repor to the US Atomic Energy Commission, whieh has since een acielated by’ experts asthe safest and most secure rncthod of permanent disposal However, progress coward developing 9 eologe repository was slow until NWPA sas ened in 1985 Citing the potential isks ofthe accunvalating amounts of nuclear waste, NWPA

‘equited the federal government to take responsibilty for the disposition fof nuclear waste and requted DOB to develop a pennant geotogte

‘repository co protect public health sd safety and the eniconment for

“current and future generations Specifically, he act required DOB to study

several locations around the country for possible repository sites and {develop a contractual relationship with industry for disposal ofthe nuclear

‘waste, The Congress amended NWPA in 1987 1 restrict seintiie study and characterization of possible repostory to only Yucea Mountain (Fi

2 shows the north crest of Yueea Mountain anda cut-out ofthe proposed

‘mined repository.) Pogue Aca View ana Cur Out tne Yores Moura epost)

TT tes rain

After the Congress approved Yucca Mountain as a suitable site forthe

‘evelopment ofa permanent nuclear waste repository in 22, DOE began Pages (©NO.10.48 Neca Wate Managment

‘deems it necessary and complies with cetain reporting requirements,

‘To pay the nuclear power industry's share ofthe cost forthe Yucea lomain repository, NPA established the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is fund by 2 fee of one mill (one-tenth ofa cent) per kilowas- hour of nelear generated electricity thatthe Federal government collects from

«lectte power companies DOE reported that, 2 the end of fiscal year

2008, the Nuclear Waste Furl confained $22 bilion, with an sional

4319 billion projected robe added in 2008 DOE receives money from the Nuclear Waste Fund theough congressional appropriations Aaitional TRntling forthe reposivry eames iron an appropriation whieh provides for the disposal cst of DOE-managed spent nuclear fuel and high-level

INWPA caps nuclear wasce that ean be disposed of a the Yueca Mountain reosivory at 70,00 metre tons until second repository is available However the nation ha already accumulated bout 7,00 metre tons of nuclear waste at current reaetor sites and DOE facilities Without a change inthe law ta ease the cap orto allow the constvuetion ofa second

repository, DOE ean dispose of only the current nuclear waste inventor The nation will have to develop a strategy fora aditicnal 83,000 metric {ons af waste expected tobe generated T NRC issues 20-year license {extensions to all o he currently operating nuclear reaetors This amount {does not include any nuclear waste generated by new reactors or future defense etviies or greater than class C nuelear waste," Accor 10

Nuclear waste has continued fo accumulate atthe nation’s commercial and DOE nuclear facilites over the past 60 years Fuclity managers must Actively manage the mtclear waste by continually isolating, confning and nonitoring to keep humans andthe environment safe Most spent

‘nuclear felis stored at reactor sites, immersed in pools of water designed {o.co0l and isolate it from the environment Widk nowhere Yo dispose of the spent nuclear fuel, the racks holding spent fuel inthe pools have been rearranged to allow for more dense storage of assemblies Even with this seracking, spent nuclear fuel pools are reaching thelr capacities, Some

‘nites have expressed concert about the remote possblity ofan

‘overcrowded spent nuclear fuel poo releasing large ancounes of radiation fan aceident or other event eansed the poo! to lose water, potentially leading toa fire that could disperse radioactive material As reactor

‘operators have tun ove of space in thelr spent niclear fuel poots, they have {ured in nereasing number to dry cask storage systems that generally consist of stainless stel easter placed inside larger sainiess steel or concrete easks (See fg 3.) NRC requires protective shielding, routine

‘inspections and monitoring and security ystems to isolate the nuclear

‘waste co proteet humans and the environment

Figures ry cask Storage System for Spent Nuctear Eu

arson neta ttl are oe she ere anes coy pnt il hapten ate stove gear len

Sein ec cata stot

oe nents Wawra Be

RE die hi mượn ng Sere Sse ier sente pee

ih ayes

NRC has deverinined that these dy cask storage systems can Safchy store nuclear waste, bal NRC considers then to be interim measures 189, NRC issued revised waste confidence re stating that i had eonfidenee that the waste generated by a reactor can be safely stored in either wet or dry storage for 30 years beyond a reactor’ life, including license

extensions NRC further determined that it had reasonable assurance that

‘safe geologic disposal was feasible and tha a geologte repository would be

‘operational by about 2025 More recently, NRC has published a notice of proposed ralemalking to revise that re, proposing that waste generated hiya teactor ean he safely stored for 60 years heyond te life ofa reactor

‘and that geologi disposal would be available in 50 to 0 years beyond » reactors fe” NRC is currently considering ssether to republish is proposed rule to seek additional pubic input on certain issues Forty-five Teattor sites or former reactor sites in 3 states have dry storage facilities for their spent nuclese fuel as of June 2008, and the number of resetor sites storing spent neleae fuels kel 1 continue lo toa! Han Alvemative isimplemested

Implementing a permanent, safe, ad secure disposal solution forthe nuclear waste Is of concetn to the nation, particularly state goveruments And local comuruniies, heease many ofthe Bl sites where nuclear waste 1s currently stored are near large populations or major water sources or

‘carsist of shutdosrn reactor sites tate upland that could be sed for

‘other purpases In adaition, sates tht have DOE feeltes with naclear waste Starage are concerned because of possible contamination 10 aquifers, rivers and ollee natural resources DOB's Hanford Reservation, located near Richland, Washington, was'a major component of the nation's imicleur weapons defense program from 19{3 unl 188, when operations

‘ceased nthe seilement af a lawsuit fied by the state of Washingt in

2005, DOR ageeed not co ship certain miclear waste to Hanford til

“environmental eviews were complete In August 200 the US

‘zovernment stated that the preferred aleratve in DOE's environmental review would include linitabions on certain nuclear waste shipments to Hanford wat the process of immobilizing tank waste in glass bess,

‘expected in 3019." Moreover, some commerclal and DOB sites where the ngelear waste is stored may not be able 0 accommodate much additional waste safely because of limited storage space or community objections,

‘These sites will require a more immediate solution

‘The nation has considered proposals to uild centralized storage faeilties where waste from reactor sites could be consolidated The 1987

amendment to NWPA established the Office ofthe Nuclear Waste

‘Negotiator to try to broker an agreement fora community to host repository or interim storage facility Two negotiators worked with tocal

‘communities andl Native American tribes for several years, but nelther was able to conclude a proposed agreement witha wiling community by

“January 1985, when the office's authority expired Subsequently, in 2008 aller Dear licensing process consortium of eleteie poster companies

‘alled Private Fuel Storage obtained a NRC license for a private centralized storage fait on the reservation ofthe Skull Valley Band of

‘the Goshute Indians in Utah, NRC's 0 year ieense—with an option for an ditional 20 years—allows storage of wp to 40,000 metric tons of

‘commercial spent nuclear fuel, However, consiruction of the Private Fuel Storage faily has been delayed by Department ofthe Interior decisions not to approve the lease of tba lands to Private Fuel Storage and declining vo issue the necessary rights-of-way to transport nuclear waste t0 the facility through Bureew of Land Management land Private Fuel Storage and the Skull Valley Band of Goshntes Med federal lawsuit in 2007 t0

‘overturn Interior's decisions

Reprocessing nuclear waste could potentially reduce, but not eliminate, the amount of waste for disposal In reprocessing, usable uranium and plutonium are recovered from spent nuclear fuel and ae used to make new fuel rods, However, current reprocessing technologies separate

‘weapons usable plutonium and other fissonable materials from the spent

‘nuclear fuel, ising concerns about nuclear prokiferstion by terrorist or

"The U8 gnermnent mode trent eo late a nat sreent

cm th gol of Stef Wahi Ch No, C08 ta FY ED

‘Wankngom ea Now 28) nthe nn of Wanhinglon fed caring DO

‘Protetion Agency by fling to meet eforceable cleanup milestones inthe ngreement On

‘Nog 1,2, DO and hea wnt hoy ha esd eta seen, Tews uestons aout Caste at its Prati DOB and Waste

‘tsp Sty a Sanford A 013 Wasting D.C Set 3,200)

mien CAO 1944 Nai Net Management

“enemy states Athough the United States pioneered the reprocessing {echnologies used by other countries, uch as France and Russi, pesilen's Geral For and sims Carter ended goverment suppor for

«commercial reprocessing in the United States in 1970 and 1877, respectively, primanly due to proliferation concerns Alhough President Ronald Reagan ited the ban on government support in 1981, the nation

‘nas not embarked on any reprocessing program due to proliferation and cost concerns the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that

‘current reprocessing technologies are more expensive than direct disposat

‘ofthe waste in a geologic repository’ DOE's Fuel Cyele Research and Development program is currently performing research ia reprocessing teebnglogles that would not separate ont weapons usable plutons, Dut

‘snot certtin whether these technologies will become cost-effective

‘The general consensus ofthe imernational scientific eommnonity is that geologic disposal Is the preferred long term nuclear waste ninagersent alternative Finland, Sweden, Canada, France, snd Switzerland hase ected to eonsirict geoiouie dispost fcilites, but none have yet completed any such faci although DOE reports that Finland and Sweden have announced plans to begin emplacement operations in 220 And 2028, respectively Maveoxer, saine countries employ 4 m8 of

‘complementary storage alternatives in heir national waste management Seategies, including onsite storage, consolidated interim storage

"reprocessing, and geologic disposal For example, Sveden plans o rely on teste storage unl the waste cools enough to move tọa eehfraløedf Storage feels, where the waste will continue to cool and deess for an

‘ditional 30 years This waste wil then he pled i a geologie repository {or disposal, Frunce reprocesses the spent riclear fuel, reeling usable portions as new fel and storing the remainder for eventual disposal

anges ai i, Cn af eran ie Pip Set

The Yucca Mountain

Repository Would

Provide a Permanent

Solution for Nuclear

Waste, but Its

40 DOE and industry siudies the repository potentially ould be a disposal site for three to four tives that amount of waste However, the repository Jacks the suppoet ofthe administration and the state of Nevada, aad faces regulatory and other challenges Our analysis of DOE'S cost projections Found thatthe Yucca Mountain repository would cost from $4 billion to

87 llion (in 2009 present value) for disposing of 163,000 metric tons of nuclear waste." Most ofthese casts are up-front eaptal costs However

‘once the Yueea Mountain repository Is closed —jn 2151 for our 153,000 metrie‘on madel—ie isnot expected to incur any signfeant adional costs, according to DOE,

Solution and Would

Reduce the Uncertainty

Associated with Future

Nuclear Waste Safety

‘The Yucca Mountain repository is designed to isolate nuclear wasce in safe and secure envigonment long enough for the waste to degrade into a form thal i less harinfl to humans snd the environment As sucleae waste ages it cools and decays, becoming ess radiologically dangerous [a October 2008, ater vears of legal challenges, the Environmental

Protection Agency (BPA) promulgated standards that require DOP to censure that radioactive releases fom the nuclear waste disposed of at Yucea Mouniain do not harm the publi for I wilion years." This is beeause some waste components, sich as plutonium 23, ake hundreds of

‘thousands of years to decay inc Fes harmful materials, To meet EPA'S standards and keep the waste safely fsolated, DOR’ license apphieation proposes the use ofboth natural and engineered! barriers Key natural

‘nertiens of Yuces Mountain include ts dry elimate, the depth and isolation

Aimy of Seenes sat fh ath elated ert sles: NE as

<1

‘ofthe Deati Valley aqolfer ia which the wonntaln resides is natural plysical shape, andthe layers of chick rock above sd below the repository (at le 1,000 feet below the surface of tke mountain and 1,00 Feet above the water table Key engineered barriers ielude the solid nature ofthe niclear waste; the double-shelled transportation, aging, ac isposal canisters that encapsulate the waste and prevent radiation leakages and drip shields that are composed of corrosion-resiscant

‘iim to ward off ang dripping water inside the repository for many thousands of years

‘expressed concerns tha investors andthe publle will ot support the

‘constriction of new miclear power reactors withot final sae and secure disposition yathway forthe nuclear waste, particularly i that waste

ts generated and stored near major waterways oF urban eenters, Moreover, thaving& permanent disposal option way allow reactor operators ta thin

‘ou spent nuclene fuel assemblies from densely packed spent fuel pools, potentially reducing the Sk of hari to huts oF the enitonment in the

‘vent ofan seeder, natural disaster, oF (errorist even

In ation, disposal is the only allemative for some DOE ans commercial auclear waste—even ifthe United States decided to reprocess the wste— Pecans it contains miclear waste resides that cannot he used 28 nicleae reaclor fuel, This micleur waste has na safe, long-term allemative other than disposal, andthe Yucea Mountain repository would provide a near-

‘erm, permanent disposal pathway fori Moreover, DOE has sgeeed 10

£60,000 per day and 2) curtail or suspend future shipments of spent

‘nuclear fuel to Maho." Some of the spent miclear fe stored athe Idaho Nanional Laboratory comes vom refueling the US Nass’ submarines and airerafy caries, all of which are nuclear powered Specal felis are naitained at the Idaio National Laboratory to examine naval spent

‘nuclear fuel to obtain information for improving future fuel pevormance and to package the spent nuclear fue! following examintion to make it realy for ri shipment to Is ulbwate destination According to Navy

“officials, reeling these warships stich necessitates shipment of nasal spent nuclear fuel from the shipyards conducting the refuelings to the Tdaho Nationa Laboratory, is part of the Navy's national secusty mission Consequently, eartaling o suspending shipments af spent mueleat Mel Idaho raises national secstly concer fr the Nav

"he Yueea Mountain repository would help the government fulfil ts

‘obligation under NWPA to electie power companies and ratepayers to take custody ofthe commercial spent nuclear Mel aad provide a srermanenl repository using he Nuclear Waste Fund When DOE missed sis 1298 deadline to begin tang custody ofthe waste, owners of spent fuel

‘with contrets for disposal services filed lawsuits asking the cous to equize DOE to ull ts statutory and contractual obligations by taking

‘custody of she waste Thoush & court decided that it would not order DOR {o egin taking estoy of the west, the courts have, in subsequent cases,

‘ordered the government to compensate the utes forthe cost of storing the waste DOE projected tha, based on 2 2020 date for beginning

‘operations at Yucea Moun(ain, the government's igbilties fom the TL Jawssats fled hy electzie poner companies cone sum to about $128, billion, though te asteome of pending and future hiization could

ican arknoeleignd Out ida cov ef com actin te ese to

-bslantatlyafeet the ulate total abit.” DOB estimates that the federal government's future abilities will average up to $800 milion per sear, Furthermore, coined delays in DOE's sbi to take enstods of the waste cov rest in additions labiltes, Some experts noted that

‘without immediate plans for 2 permanent repository, reactor operators snd ratepayers may demand that the Nuclear Waste Fund be refunded.”

Finally, disposing of the nuclear waste noi a repesitory facility would reduce the uncertainty about the willingness or the ability of future {generations to monitor and maintain maliple surface waste storage frelities and would eliminate the need for any future handing of the waste, #2001 report ofthe National Academies noted, continued storage of nuclear wasto is technically feasible ony if those responsible for it are wiling and able to devote adequate resources and attention 4o :nlntaining and expanding the storage facies, as reqized to keep the waste safe and seeure.” DOK officials nocd tha the waste packages a Yucea Mouniain are designed to he retievable for more than 100 year aller emplacement, at whic ime DOE would begin to cose the repository, alloring future generations to consider retreving spent

‘nuclear fel for reprocessing or other Uses However, the risks and costs lof rexreving the nlielear waste from Yaeea Mountai are acertai beeause planaing efforts for retrieval are prelinsnary Once closed, Yueea Mountain wil cequie minimal monioring and ile oe no maineenance, and al nite controls willbe passive." Some expests sited the the

‘current generation as moral obligation 10 nat pas onto fire

Including a Lack of Key

Support and License

Approval

“There are many challenges ta licensing and constructing the Yucea Mountain tepostory, some of which could delay oF potentials terminate

‘he program, Fest, in March 2009, the Secretary of Ener sisted that the

‘administration planned to terminate the Yueea Mountain repository ad ta form a panel of experts to review allernatives, During the testinnong, the Secretary stated that Yuces Mounizin would not he considered as one of the alternatives The administration's fseal yeat 2010 bndget request for YYeea Mounisin wes $197 milion, whieh is 8206 lion less tam what DOE stated it needs to tay on its schedule andl open Yucea Mountain by

Nevercheless, NWPA stil requires DOE to pursue geologie disposal at

‘Yucca blonntain Ihe zaminstration continues the leensing process for Yucea Mountain, DOE would face a variety of other eballenges in Heensing and constructing the repository Many of these challenges though unique {to Yueea Monstain—might also apply in siniar form to other te repositories, should they he considered,

One of the most significant challenges facing DOE isto satisfy NRC that

‘Yucca Mouniain meets heensing requirements, nclođing enshfing the repository meets EPA's radiation standards over the required I million

‘Yea me frame, as implemented by NRC regulation, For example, NRC's

“Tạc Noi Berg tte epost ie sions power ty ade Nation

‘ofthe natural and engineered barriers and that demonstrating a reasonable expectation of eompliance requires the use of complex predictive models supported by feld data, laboratory tests site-specific ‘monitoring and natural analog studies, The Nuclear Waste Teehaical Review Bose has also stated tha the performance assessment may be

“the most eoples and ambitious probabilistic risk assessivent ever vifertaken” and the Board, as well as other groups oF mills, have raised technical concerns about key aspects of te engineered or natural barriers nthe reposiory design,

DOE and NRC officials also stated that budget constants rlse atonal challenges, DOB officials cold us tat past budget shorts and projected fitare low budgets fr the Yucca Mountain repository ereate significant challenges in DOE's sblty to meet nulestones for ieensing and for responding to NBC's requests for additional information related to the Iicense application b addition, NRC officials told us budget shorts nave constrained their resourees, Stal members they orginally hired to review DOE's license application have moved to ather divisions within NRC or have left NRC entirely NRC officials stated tha the pace ofthe license review is commensizaie with funding levels, Some experts hace

‘questioned whedher NRC ean meet the maximum 4-year time requirement Stipulated in SWWPA for hcense review and have pointed out Lat the longer the delays in Heensing Yueca Mountain, the more eastly and politically

‘ilnerabe the effore becomes

In addition, the state of Nevada sed ator groups thal oppose the Yuees

‘Mountain repositary have raise technical points, site-specific concerns, and equity issues and have taken steps to delay oF terainate the

repository: For example, Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects questioned DOR's rellance ox engineered haztevs i ts performance assessment Indicating that too many’ uncertainties exist for DOE to claim human-made systems will perform as expected over te time fares require In

addition, the agency reported that Yueea Mountain's location near seis

‘nl voleanie zones creates additional certainty about DOE'S ality to plediet a reurence of sesiic of voleanie events and to assess the performance of is waste Ssoation bartiers should those events oceur some time during the Lillion-yens tine frame The agency also has

‘questioned whether Yucea Mountain is the best ite compared with other

Tocations and has rased issues of eqully, since Nevada is being asked to Aacecpt nuclear waste generated in other states In adliion to the Agency Tor Nuclear Prajects tastes, Nevada has taken other steps co delay oF terminate the project For example, Nevada has denied te water rights DOE needs for construction ofa ral spur and facility structures at Yucca, Mountain DOE officials told ws that constructing the rll line or the facies at Yueea Mouriin without Unose water rights willbe dificult,

Based on DOE's Gost

Estimates, Yueca Mountain

Will Likely Cost from $41

Billion to $67 Billion for

As shown in fgure 4, (he Yueca Mountain repository casts are expected ro

‘he high during construction, followed by reduced, but consistent cos ating operations, substantially reduced cos for monitoring, then a period ofinerensed costs for installation ofthe drip shields, and finaly

‘sts tapering of for closure Once the drip shields are snstalled, by design, Ihe waste packages will no longer be retrievable After closire,

‘Yucca Mouncain is not expected to eur any significant addtional costs

2009 dollars Although the expets sith whom we consulted did not agyee

‘on how long the licensing process for Yucca Mountain might Lake, several

‘experts ald us that he 9 years it tok Private Pael Storage to obtain ts hicense was not unteasonable This ieensing time flame my nor đirerly pls tothe Yieca Mounin repository because te repository has 3 Signftcantly differen licensing process and regulatory seheme, including fextensive prtlicensing interactions, a federal funding stream, ad a extended compliance period and because ofthe uncertainties, could take shorter or longer than the Private Fuel Storage experience A nine-year licensing process for construction authorization would add an estimated 32.2billon tothe cost of the repository, mostly in costs to mani

‘current systems, suc as project suppor, safeguards snd security, and its licensing support network In addition to consideration ofthe issiance of

a construction aithorization, NRC's repository lieensing process incolves|

‘ovo additional licensing actons necessary 1o operate and close &

repository, each of which allows for public mput and could potentially adversely affect the schedule an cost ofthe repository, The second action, {is the consideration of an updated DOE application fora license to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste The third action sche

‘consideration of DOE application fora license amendinent I0 permanenly close the repositars Costs could also increase if unforeseen {echnical isves developed, For example, some experts old us tha the robotic emplacement of waste packages could be difficult because of the

‘heat and radiation output from the nuclear waste, which could impact the leetronies on the machinery DOE officials acknowledged the challenges And tol isthe machines would have tobe shielded for proveetion They noted, hosrever thal ivlusry tas experience with remote handling of Shielded robotic machinery and DOE should be able to use that experience

in developing its ov machinery

‘The responsibilty for Yucea Mountain's costs would eome from the Nuclear Waste Fund and taxpayers through anal sppropristions, NWPA created the Nuclear Waste Funtl asa mechanism for the nuclear power Industry to pa for its share ofthe cost for bullding and operating a pernaient tepasitory to dispose of micless waste KWPA also tequlted the Federal taxpayers to pay forthe portion of permanent repository costs for DDOE-managed spent nuelear fuel end high-level waste DOE has

sesponsiilty for determining on an annual basis whether fees charged to Industry to finance the Nuclear Waste Fund are suficient co meet

industy's share of costs As part ofthat process, DOE developed &

tnetholology n 1989 that uses the otal system life eyele cost estimate as

‘np for determining the shares of lzstry and the federal government by

‘matching prjeeted costs against projected assets The most recent published assessment, published n July 3I05 showed that 80.1 pereent of

he disposal eosts would come fom the Nuclear Waste Fund and 19.8 percent would conve from appropriations forthe DOF-wanayed spent nuclear fuel and highievel waste

‘defend DOE in the fitigtion

‘component parts, we spstematialy sliited facts, advice, and opinions From experts in nuclear waste management, Fivally, we sed the data and assumptions thatthe experts proved to develop large-seale cost models that estimate ranges of likely total eosts for each akernative

We Consulted with Experts

to Identify and Develop

Assumptions for Two

Generie Alternatives to

Analysis

To Wlentify waste management altematives that coold be implemented if the waste iso disposed of at Yucca Mountain, we solicited facts, advice, and opinions from nuclear waste management experis Specifically, we terested dozens of experts from DOE, NRC, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the National Association of Regulatory Culity Comadssioners the National Conference of State Lesislatures, andthe State of Nevada -Ageney for Nuclear Projects We also reviewed documents they provided

as future potential as 2 part of the nation's nuclear waste management sratewy Beeause muclear waste isnot reprocessed in this country, we found a lack of sufficient and reliable data to provide meaning analysis for this altemative Experts have largely dismissed otersltematives that nave been Klennified, shel as disposal of waste In deep boreholes, because

‘of castor technical constrains

‘We developed a set of key assnnptions 10 establish the scope of our alternatives hy stall consating with 2 sival sronp of nuclear waste nanagentent experts For example, we asked the experts about haw trang Storage ites should be use and whether waste woul have tobe

repackaged These discussions occurred in an iterative mannes—we followed up with experts with specific expertise to refine our assumptions

‘as we Jearned more Based on this par, we formulated several key

‘ssuyplions sd defined the alternatives in a generic manner by taking Into aceount some, but not al of te complexities involved with muclear

‘waste management (see table 2) We made this choice because experts advised ws that trying to consider all of the variability aunong reactor sites

‘would result in wumanazeable models since each location where nuclear waste is curently stored has 2 unique set of environmental, management, And regulatory considerations that afeet the logistics and costs of waste

‘management For example, reactor sites use different dry cask storase systems with varying costs that require different operating logstesto load the casks

Resesrsgenime

‘actor sites, which includes operating reactor ses, deoorvrleslesd realof gies, and he Morris

Bec srulntn arva ezarttan sccm S2 neee

‘Asura opertng aso oi a ye eck ib Seiad wen pron sae, ae spar ar it ty stra elon and oni eps un

‘pura Geral Cane Goperaten, wich engoaty mena aera sim rarerng

In ation, there were some instances in which we male assumptions

‘hat, while not encinely realise, were necessary to keep ourternatives ener and distinct from one anther For example, sone electric power

‘companies would likely consolidate nelear waste from diferent locations

by transporsingt between reactor ses, bt Lo keep the on-site storage lteitive generic and distinct from the centralized storage alternative,

‘we assumed that there would be no consolidation of waste These Simplifying assuinpions make our alternatives hypothetical and not

‘entirely representative oftheir real-world iplementaion

‘We also consulted with experts to formulate mace specific assumptions ahout processes tha refleet the sequence of atiiles thạc would occur with each alternative (See Og 5) In addition, we identified the

‘components ofthese processes that have associated cosis For example,

‘one af the processes associated with both altematives i packaging the

‘nuclear waste in dry storage canisters fom the pools of water where they are stored The componeat costs assoelsted with 1his process mehde the {iy storage canisters and operations co load the spent nuclear fuel inc the

‘hen Solicited comments on the initial data from beosder sroup of experts using data eolletion instrument that asked specific questions About haw reasonable the data were, We received almost 70 sets of

‘comments an! used thet to reRine ar modify our assumptions ad

‘component costs and develop the input data thst we woul! use to estimate rage (680.108 Nac Wate Manage

{the overall costs ofthe alternatives (See app 1 for additonal information| hott our scope and methodologs, app for our methodology or Soliciting comments from mcleae waste management exper, and spp IL for these experts)

We Developed Cost Ranges

for Each Alternative Using

Large-scale Cost Models,

that Addressed

Uncertainties and

Discounted Future Costs

‘To generate cost anges forthe centralized storage and on-site storage alternatives, we developed four large-scale cost modes that unalyzed the costs for each alternative of toring 70,000 metic tons and 183,000 metric tons of nuclear waste and created scenarios within these models to analyze different storage dations and final dispositions (See table 3.) We enerated cost ranges for eae alcerativefor-sioring {59,00 metric tons

‘of waste for 100 years followed by disposal in a geologie repository We also generated cost ranges fr each alternative of storing 70,000 metrie ons and 159,000 metric ons of nuclear waste for 100 years, and for Storing 158,000 metric tons af waste on site for 500 years without incding the cost of subsequent disposal in a geologic repository For each of the eles, which rely pon data and assumptions provided by nuclear waste

"management experts, the cost range was hased on the anna volume of ccoramercal spent niclear fuel that beeane ready’ 0 be packaged and

‘Stored in each year" ly general, each model started in 28 by anally {racking costs of intial packaging and related casts forthe fist 100 years and for every 100 years thereafter if te waste was to remain on site and

be repackaged Since our movlels analyzed only the costs associated with Storing conmmetetl niclear waste management, we augmented them with DOE'S cost data for (1} managing its spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste and @) constructing and operating a permanent repository Specially, we used DOE's estimated costs for the Yucez Mounizin repository (o represent cost fora hypothetical permanent reposiony.=

ast Seenaro management ¬ (metre tone} vol Giration Iyeste) longterm management

‘Oreste sioage 158000 00 Nave

‘One of he inherent dffculies of analyzing she cost of any nuclear waste

‘management alternative isthe large mimber of uncertainties that need 10

"Đề afdteseed Tn.vldidon to general aneertainy avout the fare, there 1s

‘uncertainty heeatse of the lack of knowledge about the waste

‘management technologies required, the type of waste and waste snanageinent systems tht individual reactors will eventually employ, and {ost components that are Key Inpnts tothe motels and could ocear aver Ihundreds or thousands of years Given these numerous uneeraintes, LS not possible to precisely determine the coal costs of each alternative However, much of the uncertainty that we could not easily capture within

‘our models can he addressed dhrough the use of several atemative models And scenarios As shown in table 3, we developed 1wo melee or each alternative co address the uncertainty regarding te otal volume of waste for disposal We then developed different scenarios within each model tớ adress diferent time frames and disposal paths Furthermore, we used a risk analysis modeling technique that recognized and adresse

uncertainties in our data and assumptions Given the dilferene possible Scenes and uncertainties, se generated ranges, rather than pout

‘estimates, for analyzing the cost of eae alersative

‘One of the most important uncertainties in our analysis was uncertainty

‘oter component costs To address thi, we used a commneretaly avlable

‘sk analysis software program that enabled ns to model specific

Another inerent diieulty in estimating the cost of nuclear waste

‘management alternatives the fact that the costs are spread over Ihundeds or thousands of years, The economic concept of discounting is

‘ceniral to sch long-term analysis because i allows us to convert costs {that oceurin the distant furs to present vale—equivalent valuesin today’s dollars Although the concept of diseonnting isan accepted and standard methodology m economies, te concept of discounting values

‘overa very distant future krovn as “ntergencrational discounting” i6 sll subject to considerable debate, Furthermore, no consensus exists mong economists regarding the exact value of the discount rate that Should be nsed to ascount valves that are spread over may hundreds oF Ahousands of years

o develop an appropriate discounting methodology and to choose the iseount rates for our analysis, we reviewed a nnmber of economic studies

‘published is neerrevieseed journals that addressed inergenerti scouring, Based on our review, we fesigned a discounting methodology for use in our models, Because our review dil not find a consent discount rates, we used a range of values fr discount rates that we {developed based on the economie studies we reviewed, rather than using

‘one single rate Consequently, Because we used ranges forthe discount rate along with the Monte Carlo simulation process, te present value of

‘stinated easts does not depend on one single discount rate, but rather reflect a range of discount rate values taken from peer-reviewed studies (See app V for details of our modeling and discounting methodologies, assiptions, and reslls)

"waste In addition, centalized storage faces several implementation challenges eluting that DOF (1) lacks scatutory authority to provide

‘eniralized storage under NWPA, ©) is expected to have difficulty finding {location willing to host a centralized storage facility, and (8) faces potential transportation risks The estimated cost of implementing centralized storage for 100 yeaes ranges from 815 hillon to $29 lon for 155,000 metre tans of nuelear wasee, an he total cost ranges frm $25

‘nllion 4 $81 billion the nuclear waste i centrally stored and then ispased ina geologic repository

Nuclear Waste but Does

Not Eliminate the Need for

Final Disposal

{As te administration e-examines the Yucca Mountain repository and national nuclear waste policy, centralized dry eask storage could provide s near-term altemative for manazing the waste that has accunalated and will eontine to accuannate This would provide additional t2ne—NRC thas stated that spent melear fe storage is Safe and environmental acceptable fora period on the order of 100 years—to consider othe long: {erm options thst may involve alternative polieies and new technologies and allow some flexibility for their implementation For example,

‘eniralized storage would mtn nilear waste In interim dy storage

‘configurations so that it could be easly accessible for reprocessing in case {he nation decided to purse reprocessing asa waste management option and developed technologies that address current proliferation andl cost

‘concers In fat, reprocessing felts could be but near oF adjacent to

‘ceniralzed facies to masinize efficiencies However, even with reprocessing, some of the spent nelear fue an highvlewel waste it

‘current inventories would eequice inal dispose,

‘han nuclear waste storage, allowing these sites to be elosed Some of these storage sites occupy land that potentially eould be used for other purposes, imposing an opportunity cost on states an eommurties chat no longer receive the benefits of electricity generation from the reactors To

‘compensate for this loss, udustry officals noted that st least 1wo sta

‘where deconussioned sites are focated have tried to ralse property taxes

‘on the sites, an atone sit, the state collects a per eask fee for Storage In

‘ation, the continned storage of nuelear waste at decommissioned sites

‘can cost the power companies between about $1 milion and 88 million per Year, cording (o several experts

Centralized storage conld allow reaetor operators to thin-our spent nuclear Fel assemblies fom densely packed spent fuel pools and may also

prevent operating reactors from having to build the addtional dry storage

‘aparity they wonld need ifthe nuclear waste remained on ste According {oan industry official, 5 reactor sites could have ald dey sora Foclies over the nest 10 years onder to maintain a desired eapacity in ther storage poals These dy storage facilities could cost abort $30 prllion each, but this cost would vary widely hy sie, In ation, some

‘current reacor sites se older waste storage systems and are near large

‘les of large bodies of reSh water used for drinking or irgation

Although NRC's licensing and iespection process is designed ta ensure that these existing faites appropristely protect public health and safety, new centralized flies could use state-of-the-art design techaology nnd

be located in emate areas with fewer environmental hazards, in order to proteet public health and enhance safety

Einal f DOE uses centralized facies to store conamercia spent nuclear fuel, this alternative could allow DOE to full ts obligation 10 take custad ofthe eomnmerchal spent miclea Mel tua lòng cerm, strategy isimplemented Asa result, DOE could curtis bilities to the

‘lectrie power companies, potentially saving the government up to $500, nillion per year aller 202, 2s estimate by DOE The acl inet of

‘centralized storage on the amount ofthe liabilities would depend on several factors, inliding when centralized storage is avaiable, whether reactor sites had already built on-sie dry storage fuelites for whieh the sovernment may be lable for 2 portion of te cost, low soon waste could

be transported toa centralized site, and the outcome of pending Inigation that may affect the governments tral lability DOE estates that if various complex samnory, regulatory, siting, construction, and franca fssues were expeditiously resolve, a centralized facibiy co necept clear

‘waste could begin operations as cad as 6 years after its development Degan, Hostever, a centralized storage exper estimated that the process from site selection until a centralized fclty opens could take between 17 and 3 years

Although centralized storage has a numberof postive atibutes i provides only an ncerim alternative and does no: eliminate the need for

Tinal disposal ofthe nuclear waste To keep the waste safe and secure, @

‘centralized siorage facility tees on setve istitional controls, sich ss monitoring, maintenance, and security, Overtime, the storage systems may’ degrade and institutional controls may be disrupted, whieh could res in increased risk of rilioactive expostite to fumans oF th fenironment For example, aceording to several experts on dry cask systems, the vents an the casks—whieh allow for passive eooling-—must tie periodically inspected to ensure no debris elogs then, partieslarly ding the first several decades when the spent nuclear fuel stheerally

“hội the vents become closzed, the temperatire inthe canister could tise, which eouldinopact the Ife of the dry cask storage sytem Over @ onder tine frame, conerete on the exterior casks could dead, requiring

‘moreactive maintenance Although some experts stated that the risk of radiation being released into the environment may be low, sch risks can

be avoided by permanenty soaring the waste in 2 manner that does not reve indefinite, ative institional trols, sich as disposal in a seologie repository

‘A key challenge coalvonting the eeateallzed Sornge slrernative Is the lack

‘of authority under NWPA for DOF to provide such storge Provisions i NWPA that allow DOE to arrange for centralized storage have either

‘expired or are unusable beeause they are tied to milestones in repository {development that have not been niet For exaniple, NWPA authorized DOE {oprovide temporary storage fr a liked amount of spent niclear fuel ula repository wasavalable, bat this whorls expired in 1860, Some Industry representatives have stated that DOE stil has the authority accept and store spent nuclear fuel under the Atomic Energy Act of 1964 fas amended bit DOE aseerts that NWPA limits is authority onder the

‘AComic Bneray Ae." In addition, NWPA provided suthorty for DOE to site, construe, and operate a centralized storage facility, bot such a felity

‘could not be constricted until NRC authorized construction of the Yee

‘Mountain repository, and the facity could only store up to 10.000 metric

{ons af muclear wasie und the rgpoSt9rýsavt£fae€cpfing spent mvelear fel Therefore, unless provisions in NWPA were anvended, centralized storage wou have to he faded, owned, and operated privates:

privately operated centralized storage facility alternative, such as the proposed Private Fuel Sorage Fachty n Utah, would not likely resolve DDOE's liabilities with the nuclear power companies

A second equaly important, challenge to centralized storage i the likelihood of opposition during site selection for 2faiity Experts noted that affected sites and communities would mise concerns about safety, security, and the likelihood that an interim centallzed storage felty could become a de facto permanent storage ste if progress is not being

‘made on a permanent repository Even ifa local community supports

‘eniralized storage facility, the state may not For exanple, the Private Fuel Storage facility was generally supported by the Skull Valley Band of the Goshure Indians, on whose reservation the facity was fo he lorated, Dat the state of ia and some tribal members opposed is licensing and ccanstrction Other states have indicated thei opposition to involuntarily hosting a centralized facility through means sich as the Westem

Governors’ Association, which issued a resolution stating that "no such

‘aeilty, whether pabliely or privately ovned, sal be loeated within the eouraplie boundaries of a Wescerm state without the written consent oF the governor "* Some experts noted that a state or community may be willing (o serve asa host i substantial economic incentives were offered and ifthe party bulldng the sce undertook a hae.consaimlng and

expensive process of site characterization and safely assessment However, DOF officials stated tha in their previous experienee—such as

‘with the Nuclear Waste Negotiator about 1510 20 years ago—they have ound no incentive package that has snecessilly encouraged a sate to voluntarily host a site

post: Therefixc, the tagï6lanee ve Ahlch nuclear waste

‘ransported is likely tobe arester than wih other alkematives, an Important factor beeause, aecording to one expert transportation risk is iectly tied to this distance However, according to DOL, nuclear waste thas een safely transported inthe United States sine the 19608 and National Academy of Sciences, NRC, nnd DOE sponsored reports have foul thar te associated risks are well understood and generally low Ye, there are also perceived sks associated sth nuclear waste

{transportation that can result in lower propery vales slots

‘ansportation rontes,reduetions in tourism, ad increased arviety that create cơmuiniy apposition to miclenr waste transportation According wexperts, transportation risks could be mitigated dhrongh such means as Shipping the leat radioactive fuel Sst, usin trains that only transport

‘nuclear waste, and identifying routes that minimize posse impacts on highly populated areas tn adciion, dhe hazards associated with

‘ansportation from a centralized felt to a tepesitory oid decline a8

‘the waste decayed and Becamne less radioactive atthe centralized fail

Cost Ranges for

Centralized Storage Will

Vary Depending on Waste

Volume and Final

Disposition

‘As shown n able, our models generate east ranges from 823 lion to S51 lion forthe centralized storage of 1500 meine tons of spent

‘wuclear fel nl high evel waste for 100 years fallowed by geologic

‘disposal, Por centralized storage without dspostl, costs would range from

512 billion 1o $20 billion for 70,000 metre cons of waste and from $13

bilan 10 $29 hill for 158,900 metric tons of waste, These centralized roel scenarios include the cost of onsite operations required co package and prepare the waste for transportation, such as storing the waste in dey-

‘ash storage unt itis transported offsite, developing and operating a systen 4o trnsporl the waste to centralized storage, and constructing ad

‘operating Wo centralized storage faeiliies (See app IV Toe information about our modeling methodology, assumptions, and results.)

be greater i there were more than (wo faites and lower there Was

‘only one fatty: Some experts cold us that centralized storage would likely be implemented with anly one facihig because t would be 100 lficult 10 ste twa But other experts noted thar having more sites could rehice the numberof miles raveed by the waste and procide 2 geeater

‘degree of geographic equi, The length of time the nuclear waste Is scored

‘ould also impact the cost anges, particularly if the nuclear waste were Stored for less shan or more than the time period assumed in our model,

Fr peviods longer than 109 yen, experts told us tat the dry storage cask stems may he suect to degradation and require repackaging,

Substaniially raising the costs, a8 well the level of uncertainty kn those

‘costs, Transportation is another area where costs cot vary if for

‘example, transportation was not by til arf the transportation system

‘fered significantly from what is assumed in our models

Furthermore, costs could be outside our ranges ifthe final disposition of the wastes diferent Our scenario that includes geologe disposal is based on the current east prajetions for Yucea Mountain, but these costs could be significantly different for another repository ste o if much ofthe nuclear waste is reprocessed, A liferent gevlogie repository ould have

‘unique site ehsracterization costs, may se an entirely different design than Yucea Mountain, and tray be sore or les dffeut to bul, Aso,

‘reprocessing could contribute signfieantly co the eost af an alternative,

For example, we previously eported that construction ofa reprocessing plant with an annual produetion theoughput of 3,000 metric cons of spent rnaclear fue could cost about $41 billion.” Studies analyzed by the Congcessional Bucget Office estimate that once a reprocessing pant is constructed, spent miclear fuel eould be reprocessed at between $610,000 And $1.4 milion permetreston, when adjsted to 2008 constant dollars

‘This would result in an anna cost of about 82 billion (0 $4 bill, assuming a throughput of 3000 metric tons per year

Finally, the actual cost of implementing one of our centralized storage scenarios would likely be higher than our estimated ranges indicate because our models omit several location specific costs, These costs could not be quantified in our generic models because we did not make an assumption about the specific location ofthe centralized faites For

‘example, afew experts noted that incentives may be given a state or locality asa basis for allowing a centralized facility to be bit, but the Incentive amount may vary fom location to location based on what agreement is reached Also, several experts sud that rail construction may

be required for some locations, which could add significant cost, depending on the distance of new ral line required at a speci location Experts could nor provide data for these location dependent costs co any

‘degree of certainty, so we did not use them in our models Also, the funding source for government-run centralized storage is unclear The [Nuclear Waste Fund, which electric power companies pay nto, was established by NWPA to fund a permanent repository and cannot be used {opay for centralized storage without amending the at Without stich & change, the cost for the federal government to implement this alternative

‘would likely have to be borne bythe taxpayers