1 GAO Study on Radioactive Waste Management Scenarios Ric Cheston US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

2 Presentation Outline Background on GAO Previous GAO work related to Yucca Mountain and High Level Waste (HLW)/Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) GAO’s ongoing study of radioactive waste management scenarios (scope and methodology)

3 GAO An independent, nonpartisan agency who works for Congress Work is done at the request of congressional committees or subcommittees, mandated by law, or undertaken under the authority of the Comptroller General Advises Congress and executive agencies about ways to make government more efficient, effective, ethical, equitable and responsive

4 GAO Work on Yucca Mountain and SNF/HLW Have been reporting on Yucca Mountain issues since the 1980’s Selected recent reports:  GAO Yucca Mountain: DOE Has Improved Its Quality Assurance Program, but Whether Its Application for a NRC License Will Be High Quality Is Unclear  GAO Yucca Mountain: Quality Assurance at DOE’s Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Needs Increased Management Action

5 GAO Work on Yucca Mountain and SNF/HLW Additional Relevant Reports:  GAO – Spent Nuclear Fuel: Options Exist to Further Enhance Security  GAO – Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project GAO reports are available at

6 Background In 1987, Congress designated Yucca Mountain as the nation’s sole candidate for a permanent high-level nuclear waste repository through NWPA amendment Yucca Mountain was originally to open in 1998, but has been delayed until at least 2020 (if license application is approved and the project is adequately funded) Waste currently resides in spent fuel pools and dry cask storage at nuclear plants and at DOE sites across the country Several nuclear utilities have sued DOE for not taking custody of SNF as scheduled Current law provides no alternative repository site to Yucca Mountain

7 Background NWPA caps Yucca Mountain at 70,000 MT In late 2008, DOE reported:  About 10 %, or 7,000 MT will be DOE/defense waste  DOE/defense waste currently ~13,000 MT  Commercial SNF will exceed 63,000 MT by 2010 and reaching ~130,000 MT by 2055 DOE recommended that Congress lift the 70,000 MT cap on Yucca Mountain and reported that if not lifted, the nation will need a 2 nd repository

8 Objectives To the extent reliable data are available, provide information on the objectives and costs of: 1)the Yucca Mountain Repository, 2)storing radioactive waste at centralized interim storage facilities, then geologic disposal 3)storing radioactive waste on-site at nuclear power plants and DOE facilities, then geologic disposal Provide information on challenges and likely sources of funding associated with each scenario

9 Overview of Methodology Interview experts from DOE and other government agencies, industry, academia, and independent organizations to:  Obtain information on the objectives and challenges associated with each scenario  Gather initial assumptions and high-level cost data associated with the scenarios

10 Methodology Develop preliminary methodology and obtain feedback from the NAS and NWTRB Collect and analyze data on objectives and challenges Identify and collect cost data from short list of cost experts Develop cost projections, using economic models and Monte Carlo risk analysis

11 Methodology Characterize the preliminary scenarios for objectives, challenges, and generic costs Develop a “snowballed” list of experts Solicit feedback from experts on preliminary scenarios and revise scenarios accordingly  Industry  Government  Academia  Special Interest Nearly 70 responses

12 Methodology Team deciding how to address DOE/defense waste Likely will report DOE/EM data separately rather than incorporate into economic models

13 Preliminary Scenarios Yucca Mountain:  Utilize DOE’s assumptions and cost data  Scale DOE estimates to two waste volumes: 70,000 MT and 153,000 MT  Analyze impacts of license application delays

14 Preliminary Scenarios Centralized Interim Storage and Disposal:  Construction and operation of two dry-cask, centralized interim storage facilities  Transport SNF and HLW from commercial reactor sites and DOE sites  Interim storage for approximately 100 years and then disposal in a geologic repository  Analyze two waste volumes: 70,000 MT and 153,000 MT

15 Preliminary Scenarios Continued On-site Storage:  Long-term storage of SNF and HLW at commercial reactor and DOE sites  Dry-cask storage systems  Periodic repackaging  Analyze two waste volumes: 70,000 MT and 153,000 MT

16 Preliminary Scenarios Difficult to quantify cost categories that will likely be discussed qualitatively:  Reprocessing  SNF from new reactors  License renewal costs  State and local taxes, fees, and penalties  Cost of lawsuits related to the Standard Contract

17 Next Steps Final round of informal feedback on draft Obtain formal comment from DOE on draft report Issue report on the objectives, challenges, and costs associated with the three scenarios

18 GAO Study on Radioactive Waste Management Scenarios Questions ?