-------
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 40 CFR part 197
standards.

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

       The.EPA, pursuant to its authority and responsibilities set forth in section 801 of the
En PA, 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 (CED) 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. The standard  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) CED per year.

       Section 197.14 of this Subpart contains proposed assurance requirements to provide
confidence that the compliance with the individual dose limits 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.  The standard
requires the disposal system to be designed to provide a reasonable expectation based on

                                         10

-------
human intrusion analysis that the peak dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual
resulting from release of radionuclides into the accessible environment for 10,000 years not
exceed 150 j/Sv (15 miilirem) CED per year.

    Section 197.16 of this Subpart proposes two options for a standard for protection of
groundwater.  Option (1) 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 average level of radioactivity in the plume of contamination in
any underground  source of drinking water, in the accessible environment, 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 average level of radioactivity in the plume of contamination 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, 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 10 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 oyerall 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 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 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 Ser.
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

-------
                  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 Ser.
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.
                                        16

-------
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.
                                          17

-------
                                  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.
                                        18

-------