vvEPA
United States      Air And Radiation  EPA 402-R-95-020
Environmental Protection   (6602J)      April 1996
Agency
/	
Evaluation of the Potential
Economic Impacts of 40
CFR 197:  Environmental
Radiation Standards  for
Yucca Mountain, Nevada
          Draft

-------
40 CFR Part 197
               EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL ECONOMIC
                        IMPACTS OF 40 CFR 197:
                            ENVIRONMENTAL
                   RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS
                    FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN, NEVADA
                               April 1996
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                      Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
                          Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                                 Table of Contents


List of Abbreviations and Acronyms	  ii

Executive Summary  	  1

1.0 Introduction and Background On the Rule	  3
     1.1 Introduction	  3
     1.2 Background - Rulemaking Context  	  3

2.0 The Repository  	  5

3.0 Sources of Radioactive Waste  	  7

4.0 Summary of Proposed Standards for Yucca Mountain	  10
     4.1 Subpart A - Environmental Standards for Storage	  10
     4.2 Subpart B - Environmental Standards for Disposal	  10

5.0 Evaluation of Consequences  	  12
     5.1 Measuring the Impact 	  12
     5.2 Likely Impacts of the Standard	  12
     5.3 Funding Mechanisms for Repository Costs	  16

References  	  17

Exhibit 1. High Level Waste Generators for the Yucca Mountain Repository	  8
Exhibit 2. Yucca Mountain Repository Costs to Date	  15

-------
                        List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
CEDE        committed effective dose equivalent



CFR         Code of Federal Regulations



DOE         U.S. Department of Energy



EnPA        Energy Policy Act of 1992



EPA         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



HLW         high level waste



MAS         National Academy of Sciences



NRC         U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission



NWPAA      The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987



NWPA       Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982



SNF         spent nuclear fuel



//Sv          microsievert



USDW       underground source of drinking water



WIPP LWA   Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992

-------
                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       Pursuant to its statutory mandate under section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
(EnPA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a rule (40 CFR part
197) that contains standards for the protection of the public health and safety from releases
of radioactive materials stored or disposed of at the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada.  This report, as required by Executive Order 12866,.provides an assessment of the
economic impacts of the proposed rule.

       The proposed rule contains provisions for the storage and disposal of radioactive
materials which include spent nuclear fuel and high level waste.  Contained in the rule is (1)
an environmental standard for storage that limits individual exposure to an annual committed
effective dose equivalent (CEDE) of 150 //Sv (15 millirem), (2) two options of an
environmental standard for disposal, with different compliance periods, that limits individual
exposure to an annual CEDE of 150 /ySv, (3)  assurance  requirements to provide confidence
for long-term compliance, (4) a standard that limits individual exposure to an  annual CEDE of
150 //Sv resulting from human intrusion, and (5) three options for a ground-water protection
standard.

       At this time the Agency is unable to provide a rigorous cost-benefit or cost-
effectiveness assessment of the proposed standards due to the following four reasons.  First,
the lack of final repository and waste form designs does not allow an evaluation of the
potential costs associated with achieving compliance with the proposed standards.  Second,
the extremely long time periods over which the standards may apply inhibit a useful and
consistent basis for analysis of the costs. Third, site-specific data needed to  model the
behavior of the repository over the compliance period have not been adequately developed;
thus, a detailed evaluation of the costs required  to achieve compliance with the proposed
standards is untenable. Fourth, the implementation of the proposed EPA standards is the
responsibility of the NRC, and how the NRC implements the standard will also influence cost
estimates.  Because the NRC's approach to the implementation of these proposed standards
has not yet been determined, the estimated costs for compliance cannot be determined
rigorously.  Therefore, the Agency has conducted this evaluation of the likely economic
consequences of the standard using largely qualitative assessments.

                                          1

-------
       The EPA recognizes that in demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR part 197, the DOE
will likely incur some costs that are incremental to the current costs estimated for high-level
waste (HLW) disposal.  These incremental costs are believed to be small, particularly when
compared to the overall costs of the development of the repository, and include those that
will be incurred in developing the data and models needed to predict the behavior of the
repository over the time period covered  by the rule.  It is likely that these costs will
approximate those that would have been incurred to demonstrate compliance with other
standards, including the Agency's standards in 40 CFR part  191 or the NRC's standards for
Yucca Mountain in 10 CFR part 60.

       The EPA also recognizes the possibility of other outcomes given the uncertainties
previously mentioned and given the limited information at hand  for this analysis.  At the
extreme is the possibility that 40 CFR part 197 will preclude  the siting of the repository at
Yucca Mountain.  This would imply repeating siting and characterization efforts already
undertaken,  which to date  have totaled about $2 billion.  Re-siting the repository is not
presumed to be a likely outcome.  More likely is the application  of additional, but as yet
unknown, engineered barriers or design modifications for the repository itself. The costs for
these unknown design changes or barrier technologies are also unknown.

-------
               1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ON THE RULE

1.1    Introduction
      The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to
section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EnPA), is proposing a rule which contains
standards for the protection of the public from releases of radioactive materials stored or
disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. This report, as required
by Executive Order  12866, provides an assessment of the economic impacts of the proposed
rule. As the Agency is hindered by the unavailability of necessary information to perform a
rigorous quantitative economic assessment, this report provides background to the standards
being proposed, a summary  of the proposed standards, and a largely qualitative evaluation of
the  anticipated consequences.

1.2  Background -  Rulemaking Context
      Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) have been produced
since the 1940s mainly as a  result of commercial power production and  defense activities.
Since that time, the  disposal of these wastes has been the responsibility of the Federal
government. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982  (NWPA) formalized the current national
program for the disposal of SNF and HLW.  The NWPA: (1) made the DOE responsible for
siting, building and operating an underground geologic repository for the disposal of SNF and
HLW; (2) directed EPA to set generally applicable environmental radiation protection
standards for that program pursuant to its authority under other provisions of law; and (3)
required the NRC to license any SNF and HLW repositories based upon EPA's standards  by
incorporating the standards  into its detailed licensing requirements. The  EPA standards will
be implemented by  the NRC, not by the EPA.  These roles are maintained under the EnPA.

      In 1985, EPA established generic standards for the management, storage, and
disposal of SNF, HLW, and transuranic radioactive waste that were codified in 40 CFR part
191 (50 FR 38066).  In 1987, the U.S.  Court of Appeals for the First Circuit remanded the
disposal standards to the Agency fNRDC v. EPA. 824 F.2d  1258 (1st Cir. 1987)].  The NWPA
was amended in 1987 by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (NWPAA, Pub. L. 100-
203), which, among other actions, narrowed the characterization of several potential SNF  and
HLW disposal sites  to one, Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

-------
       In 1992, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA, Pub. L.
102-579) and the EnPA were enacted. The WIPP LWA reinstated the 40 CFR part 191
disposal standards except those sections that were the subject of the remand by the First
Circuit. The WIPP LWA also required issuance of standards to address those that were the
subject of judicial remand and exempted the Yucca Mountain site from the 40 CFR part 191
disposal standards.  Final disposal standards in 40 CFR part 191  were issued on December
20, 1993 (58 FR 66398).

      The EnPA delegated to EPA the responsibility of setting site-specific,  public health
and safety, radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain.  Specifically,  801(a)(1) of the
EnPA directed the EPA Administrator to "promulgate, by rule, public health and safety
standards for the protection of the public from releases from  radioactive materials stored  or
disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site." The EnPA also specified that the
Agency was to contract with the  MAS to provide findings and recommendations on the
standards.  The standards were  then to be based upon and consistent with those findings
and recommendations.  On August 1,  1995, the NAS released its report entitled Technical
Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards (NRC95).

-------
                               2.0  THE  REPOSITORY

      The Yucca Mountain site is located in southwestern Nevada approximately 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.  The eastern part of the site is on the Nevada Test Site, the
northwest part of the site is on the Nellis Air Force Range, and the southwest part of the site
is on Bureau of Land Management land.  The area has a desert climate with topography
typical of the Basin and Range Province.

      The NAS described the potential disposal system as a system of engineered barriers
for the disposal  of radioactive waste located in the geologic setting of Yucca Mountain.
(Note: when the Yucca Mountain repository or disposal system is discussed in this analysis,
it is to be understood that no decision has been made  regarding the acceptability of the
Yucca Mountain repository for storage or disposal. To save space and excessive repetition,
the description of the Yucca Mountain repository as "potential" will not be used but is
intended.) The  repository would be designed to hold the waste in drifts about  300 meters
beneath the ground surface in the unsaturated zone. Access to the  repository for waste
emplacement would be via gradually downward sloping ramps entering the side of Yucca
Mountain. The maximum capacity of the  repository is now constrained by the  NWPAA to
70,000 metric tonnes of SNF or HLW; about 90 percent (by mass) would be commercial SNF
and 10 percent defense HLW. Within 100 years after emplacement  operations begin, the
repository would be sealed by backfilling the drifts, closing the opening to each of the drifts,
and sealing the  entrance ramps.

    .  The engineered barrier system is expected to consist of at least a solid waste form
(e.g., SNF assemblies  or borosilicate glass containing the  HLW, internal stabilizers, the metal
canister  holding the waste) and backfill in the space between  the canister and  adjacent host
rock. Spent nuclear fuel  assemblies are made up of uranium oxide,  fission products, fuel
cladding, and support hardware, all of which will be radioactive. The resulting  waste from the
chemical processes associated with the separation of fissionable materials in spent fuel
reprocessing is called HLW and contains  all of the radioactive elements from the spent fuel
except those that have been selectively removed.

-------
       The engineered barrier system would be placed beneath Yucca Mountain in the
unsaturated zone.  Yucca Mountain consists of layered units of welded and non-welded tuff
(a type of rock formed from consolidated volcanic ash). The units are highly fractured.  The
water table is approximately 600 to 800 meters below the ground surface.  There are two
principal aquifer systems under Yucca Mountain, one in the volcanic tuff and another, at
greater depth, in carbonate rock. The aquifers are classified as underground sources of
drinking water (USDW) as the DOE is using them to supply drinking water to the Yucca
Mountain site. Regional ground-water flow appears to be in a generally southwesterly
direction.

-------
                      3.0 SOURCES OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

       Radioactive wastes are mainly the result of Federal and commercial uses of nuclear
fuel and other radioactive  material. Today's action proposes standards which pertain to SNF,
HLW, and other radioactive materials (these are sometimes referred to hereinafter as simply
"waste") which may be stored or disposed of in the Yucca Mountain repository.  Exhibit 1
shows the location of the generators that will be shipping SNF or HLW to the proposed
Yucca Mountain repository.

       Fissioning of nuclear fuel in nuclear reactors creates what is known as "spent" nuclear
fuel (SNF). Sources of SNF include:  1) commercial nuclear power plants; 2) government-
sponsored research and development programs in universities and  industry; 3) experimental
reactors, e.g., liquid-metal fast breeder reactors and high-temperature  gas-cooled reactors; 4)
U.S. Government-controlled nuclear weapons production reactors; 5) naval reactors and
other U.S. Department of Defense reactors; and (6) U.S.-owned, foreign SNF.

       Only SNF from defense reactors is being reprocessed, i.e., chemically treated to make
possible the separation of the constituent radionuclides,  in the United States at this time.
The main purpose of the reprocessing is the recovery of nuclear materials needed for the
nuclear weapons and naval nuclear propulsion programs.

Radionuclides that are not recovered  become part of the acidic liquid wastes that are planned
to be converted into various types of solid materials.  [Every element is made up of two or
more isotopes.  Isotopes of an element differ in mass but maintain the  chemical properties of
the element.  In atomic terms, all isotopes of the same element have the same number of
protons but each has a unique number of neutrons.  For example, the  element uranium
includes the isotopes uranium-234 (234U), 235U, and 238U;  the difference  is only in the number
of neutrons in their nuclei. When reference is made to isotopes of more than one element,
the term for the atoms is "nuclides." Some  nuclides are unstable and are subject to
radioactive decay. These are called radionuclides.  Some radionuclides are short-lived; e.g.,
xenon-133 and cerium-144 have 5.3-day and a 32.5-day half-lifes, respectively.  (A half-life is
the time it takes for one-half of the atoms of a specific radionuclide  to decay.)  Other

-------
   m
   X
   I
   CD'
   0>

   o>
   Q)
   
   *-*
   (D

   O
   (D
   D
   0)

   3

00  3"
   (D
   c
   o
   o
   o
   c
   0
   TJ
   O
                            High Level Waste Generators for the


                                 Yucca Mountain Repository
Commercial Nuclear Reactors


 DOE Sites                        *"

 Non-Power Reactor Sites (Approx. 40)


 Shutdown Reactors with Spent Fuel

 Commercial High Level Radioactive Waste Storage

 Yucca Mountain Repository
                                                           Total Radioactivity (MCi) = 2,709,500

-------
radionuclides are long-lived; e.g., 234U has a half-life of 246,000 years and neptunium-237
has a half-life of 2,140,000 years. In addition, many radionuclides decay and become new
radionuclides; these are termed "parent" and "progeny" nuclides, respectively. That is, the
parent nuclide decays and gives rise to the progeny nuclide.]

      The highly radioactive liquid or solid wastes from reprocessing SNF are called HLW.
If SNF is not reprocessed prior to disposal, it becomes the waste form without further
modification. Only one facility for reprocessing commercial SNF, the Nuclear Fuel Services
Plant in West Valley, New York, has operated in the United States; it was closed in 1972.
Since that time, no  commercial SNF has been reprocessed in the United States.

      Today, most SNF is stored in water pools or above ground in dry concrete  or steel
canisters at more than 70 commercial, nuclear power reactor sites across the Nation.  High-
level waste is stored underground in steel tanks at three Federal facilities in Idaho,
Washington, and South Carolina.  Prior to storage or disposal in Yucca Mountain,  the liquid
HLW will have to be converted into a solid form, e.g.,  glass,  since non-solid waste forms will
not be permitted. By the year 2000, DOE estimates that more than 40,000 metric tons of
SNF and about 340,000 cubic meters of HLW will be in storage (DOE94).

      The Agency anticipates that the SNF and solidified HLW (hereinafter,  HLW will refer to
solidified HLW unless otherwise noted)  will constitute the large majority of waste to be
emplaced in Yucca Mountain.  However, the Agency is aware of various other radioactive
materials which might be stored or disposed of in the Yucca Mountain repository.  These
materials might include  highly  radioactive low-level waste (LLW), known as greater-than-
Class-C waste, and excess plutonium or other fissile materials resulting from the
dismantlement of nuclear weapons.  Also, in the future, other types of radioactive materials
may be identified for storage or disposal. Since the plans for these materials have not been
finalized and their impact upon the performance of the disposal system has not been
analyzed by the NRC or the DOE, it is not possible for the EPA to know the impact of these
materials on the design of the disposal  system.  However, no matter what waste is placed
into the Yucca Mountain repository,  the performance must comply with the public health
standards at 40 CFR part 197.

-------
             4.0  THE PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN

       The EPA, pursuant to its authority and responsibilities set forth in section 801 of the
EnPA, is proposing standards for the protection of the public from releases of radioactive
materials stored or disposed of in a disposal system in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As
required by the EnPA, the proposed standards are based upon and consistent with the
findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences.  The standards appear
in Subparts A and B of the proposed rulemaking.

4.1  Subpart A - Environmental Standards for Storage
       This Subpart applies to radiation doses received by members of the public as a result
of the storage of radioactive material in the Yucca Mountain repository.  Storage of
radioactive material in the Yucca Mountain repository shall be done in such a manner that
the  combined committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) from  storage of radioactive
materials subject to 40 CFR part 191.03  (that is outside of the repository but inside the Yucca
Mountain site)  and storage of these wastes inside the repository shall not exceed 150 //Sv
(15  millirem) per year.

4.2  Subpart B - Environmental Standards for Disposal
       This Subpart proposes a public health standard for the disposal of radioactive material
in the Yucca Mountain repository.  Two options are being proposed:

       Option (1) requires the disposal system to be designed to provide a reasonable
expectation, based on performance assessments, that the peak  dose incurred by the
reasonably maximally exposed individual within the time of geologic stability of the Yucca
Mountain site not exceed  150 //Sv (15 millirem) CEDE per year.

       Option (2) requires that the Yucca Mountain disposal system be designed to provide a
reasonable expectation, based upon performance assessments, that the peak dose incurred
by the reasonably maximally exposed individual resulting from releases of radionuclides into
the  accessible environment, within 10,000 years,  shall not exceed 150//Sv (15 millirem)
CEDE per year.  In addition, this option requires that doses beyond 10,000 years be
calculated as an indicator of long-term performance.
                                         10

-------
       Section 197.14 of this Subpart contains proposed assurance requirements to provide
confidence that the compliance with the individual dose limits of either option will be achieved
over the long-term.

       Section 197.15 of this Subpart proposes a test of resilience of the disposal system
based upon the consequences resulting from unintentional human intrusion; two options are
proposed.  Option (1) requires the disposal system to be designed to provide a reasonable
expectation based on human intrusion analysis that the peak dose to the reasonably
maximally exposed individual resulting from release of radionuclides to the accessible
environment within the time of geologic stability of the Yucca Mountain site not exceed 150
(jSv (15 millirem) CEDE per year.  Option (2) requires the disposal system to be designed to
provide a reasonable expectation based on human intrusion analysis that the dose to the
reasonably maximally exposed individual resulting from release of radionuclides into the
accessible  environment for 10,000 years not exceed 150 //Sv (15 millirem)  CEDE per year.

    Section 197.16 of this Subpart proposes  three options for a standard for underground
sources of drinking water.  Option  (1) requires that the Yucca Mountain disposal system be
designed to provide a reasonable expectation that, for 10,000 years of undisturbed
performance after disposal, it will not cause the levels of radioactivity in any underground
source of drinking water in the accessible environment (outside the footprint of the repository)
to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR part  141 as they exist on the date of promulgation of
this Subpart.  Option (2) requires that the Yucca  Mountain  disposal system shall be designed
to provide a reasonable expectation that, for 10,000 years  of undisturbed performance after
disposal, it will not cause the levels of radioactivity in any underground source of drinking
water, in the accessible environment (outside the controlled area), to exceed the limits
specified in 40 CFR part 141 as they exist on the date of promulgation of this Subpart.
Option (3) requires that the Yucca Mountain disposal system shall be designed to provide  a
reasonable expectation that, for 10,000 years of  undisturbed performance after disposal, it
will  not cause the levels of radioactivity in any aquifer containing less than 10,000 milligrams
per liter of total dissolved solids at the point of withdrawal in the accessible environment and
serving as the sole source of drinking water for the reasonably maximally exposed individual
designated under  197.13, to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR part 141 as they exist on
the  date of promulgation of this Subpart.

                                          11

-------
                        5.0  EVALUATION OF CONSEQUENCES

5.1 Measuring the Impact of the Standard
       Executive Order 12866 requires an assessment of the economic impacts of a
proposed rule.  In performing  an economic impact assessment, the impacts of EPA's actions
are typically measured in quantitative terms as changes from existing practices or what would
have likely occurred in the absence of Agency action. Because of the lack of final repository
and waste-form designs, the extremely long time periods  over which the standards will apply,
and the fact that the site-specific data needed to model the behavior of the repository over
such time periods have not yet been developed, the Agency is unable to provide a rigorous,
quantitative cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness assessment of the proposed standards.
Therefore, the Agency has conducted its evaluation of the likely economic consequences of
the standard using largely qualitative assessments of best and worst case impacts.

       In order to have a better understanding of the impacts imposed by 40 CFR part 197
and to quantitatively estimate what the costs associated with the impacts might be, EPA  is
soliciting comments from all affected parties during the comment period for this rulemaking.
Information from the comment period will be used to  more precisely estimate the economic
impacts of this action that will  be included in the next iteration of this report.

5.2  Likely Impacts of the Standard
       One perspective on assessing the impacts of  EPA's proposed rule is  to consider the
standards being proposed within the context of the long-standing Federal effort to provide for
the long-term geologic isolation of these wastes.  From this perspective, EPA's proposed
standards for Yucca Mountain can be compared to the generally applicable environmental
standards that the EPA has promulgated in 40 CFR part 191 for geologic repositories and the
standards the NRC has promulgated in 10 CFR part  60.  Since the proposed numerical
standards are generally consistent with the limits previously established at 40 CFR part 191,
the overall impacts of 40 CFR part 197 on DOE's efforts to site and license a repository at
Yucca Mountain would be judged to be minimal;  DOE could have already factored the limits
into the repository design process and accounted for them in its estimates of the total costs
of the disposal program.

                                         12

-------
       From this best case perspective, the EPA believes that the costs that the DOE will
incur will be for the additional efforts in developing the data and models needed to predict the
behavior of the repository for the time periods covered by the rule in order to demonstrate
compliance with the limits. These costs, which would be incremental to both current site
characterization efforts and licensing activities required by  10 CFR part 60, are believed to be
small compared to the overall costs for the development and licensing of the facility. Further,
while these incremental costs have not been quantified, they are considered to be minor
within the context of the overall costs of approximately 40 billion dollars currently estimated to
safely provide for long-term isolation of these wastes (PCL95).

       In identifying the impact of the proposed standard it should be noted that it does not
contain the cumulative release limits specified in 40 CFR part 191, and Appendix B provides
considerable guidance on scenario and  exposure assumptions to be used in performance
assessment. Thus,  determination of the acceptability and/or licensing of the Yucca Mountain
site could be simplified. No quantitative estimate of the potential savings are possible as the
NRC bears the responsibility  of implementing the EPA standard, and the specifics of how the
NRC intends to implement it will not be known until that Agency conforms its regulations to
the EPA's final standards.

       One final  benefit of the proposed standard arises from the elimination of regulatory
uncertainty. With final EPA radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain, the DOE can
complete its efforts to define  the additional site data to be obtained, define and begin
developing any additional models that may be needed to assess performance, and complete
its designs for both the repository and the waste forms. Completion of these efforts by the
DOE will allow  for an earlier determination of the viability of the Yucca Mountain site, a
critical  factor in the overall program of the Federal government to provide for the long-term
management of these wastes. As the costs of maintaining the wastes to be disposed of at
Yucca  Mountain at the interim sites where they are generated will continue until a repository
is built, the cost savings associated with the elimination of delays due to regulatory
uncertainty could be significant.
                                          13

-------
       The best case conclusion that the impact of the rule on the repository will be minor
can be reached with some certainty for select portions of the rule, particularly those
addressing storage and assurance requirements. These parts in particular appear consistent
with current efforts and the NRC's requirements at 10 CFR part 60 and they should have no
impact or an insignificant one.  However, concerning the rule in general, because the data
needed to determine whether or not the standards can be met at Yucca Mountain have not
yet been developed and because we have not ascertained what engineered approaches
could or would be used to bring it into compliance, this case for a minor impact cannot be
made with the certainty that is typically required in this type of analysis.  Therefore, the
potential worst case impacts are presented to bound all possible outcomes.

       The worst case impact is that the standards being proposed preclude the siting of the
repository at Yucca Mountain.  This worst case is only presented as a possible outcome to
provide a bound on the range of impacts on the repository, the re-siting  of the repository is
not presumed to be a likely outcome.  More likely, should analyses indicate that a specific
repository design does not meet the requirements, would be the application of additional, but
as yet unknown, engineered barriers and/or design changes. Obviously, the costs associated
with such unknown  changes are also unknown.  However, in the event that re-siting is
necessitated, many of the costs already expended in the identification and characterization of
the site (approximately two billion dollars, see Exhibit 2) would  be reincurred in re-siting the
repository.

       This worst case estimate of two billion dollars represents about five percent  of the
total estimated program costs.  While this re-siting cost is a relatively small fraction  of the
total cost of the project,  it is recognized that relocating a radioactive waste repository is not
the same as relocating other facilities, and that other non-quantifiable costs and
considerations would be factored in to a decision to relocate. However,  should re-siting of
the repository be required, the  costs would be borne by the commercial  generators of spent
nuclear fuel and the Federal government. Current cost  projections (PCL95) indicate that
approximately  75 percent of any additional costs would be borne by the  commercial
generators of spent nuclear fuel, with the remaining 25 percent borne by the Federal
government.  The mechanisms for funding such increased costs and an indication of the
magnitude of the potential impact on commercial  generators are discussed below in section
5.3.
                                          14

-------
                  Exhibit 2.  Yucca Mountain Repository Costs To Date
Cost Element
Systems Engineering
Waste Package
Site Investigations
Repository
Regulatory
Exploratory Studies Facility
Test Facilities
Field Operations Center
Maintenance and Operations
Administrative and support Sen
Land Acquisition
Project Management
Financial Assistance
Other
Envir. Safety, and Health
Institutional
Support Services
Quality Assurance
Information Management
M&O
R & D/Unknown Tasks
Capital Equipment
TOTAL
Expenditure
111,231,617
95,756,070
423,034,155
90,645,568
155,043,953
211,242,682
16,899,126
6,149,513
13,596,780
15,140,241
1,351,762
307,774,467
133,925,045
2,352,147
37,775,900
9,300,494
49,288,775
22,761,778
26,046,201
5,337,070
120,708,052
67,856,296
1,923,217,692
PCL95 Peterson Consulting Limited Partnership, Independent Management and Financial
Review - Yucca Mountain Project, Nevada, Denver, CO, July 1995.
                                        15

-------
5.3 Funding Mechanisms for High-Level Waste Management System
       Section 302 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425) establishes
a nuclear waste fund for the payment of transportation and disposal costs of high-level waste
or spent nuclear fuel.  Section 302a authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into
contracts with anyone who holds title to or generates such waste and to accept ownership of
the waste for a fee. The fee is currently set at 1.0 mil (one-tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour
for electricity generated by civilian nuclear power reactors and sold 90 days or more after the
1982 act was enacted (on January 7, 1983).  The Act also directs the Secretary of Energy to
establish a one-time fee per kilogram of heavy metal in spent nuclear fuel or in solidified
high-level waste that was used to generate electricity in a civilian nuclear power reactor prior
the date when the new 1.0 mil per  kilowatt-hour fee of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
goes into effect.  This one-time fee is also equivalent to 1.0 mil per kilowatt-hour.  After
paying that fee, the previous owner of the spent fuel or solidified HLW will have no further
financial obligation to the Federal Government for its long-term storage or permanent
disposal. The Federal government's share of any increased costs would be paid out of
general tax revenues.

       An overall increase of two billion dollars in the costs of the disposal program would
equate to about one and one-half billion dollars to commercial generators.  As noted earlier,
this is about a five percent increase in the total costs, which are being covered  by a fee of
1.0 mil (0.10) per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated.  Given a nominal per kilowatt-hour
charge of 10 cents, a five percent increase in the fee (to 1.05 mil) would equate to an
increase of 0.05 percent per kilowatt-hour.
                                          16

-------
                                  REFERENCES
DOE94      U.S. Department of Energy, Integrated Data Base for 1993:  U.S. Spent Fuel
            and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characterizations,
            DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 9, Washington, D.C., March 1994.

NRC95      National Research Council, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,
            National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995.
PCL95      Peterson Consulting Limited Partnership, Independent Management and
            Financial Review - Yucca Mountain Project, Nevada, Denver, CO, July 1995.
                                       17

-------