Environmental Impact Statement, Cost Summary Report, B00000000-01717-5700-00029 REV 01

Return to the Main Document

1. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this document is to present a summary of costs in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This report provides a rough estimate of the costs for disposal of 70,000 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) in the potential repository as well as incremental waste amounts for each of three thermal loading cases described in the EIS. In addition, summary costs for waste transportation, integration, and institutional program elements are presented. It should be noted that this report is primarily based on and supported by project cost estimates from the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 1998a), and the Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (DOE 1998b), as well as EIS engineering files for the repository surface, subsurface, and waste package elements.

2. SCOPE

2.1 REPOSITORY ELEMENTS OF COST AND BASIS

2.1.1 Elements of Cost

The following areas are the major categories that make up the repository. These areas were also presented in the Viability Assessment (VA) and the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) which was used as the primary basis of the cost estimates for the EIS:

Surface Facilities
Subsurface Facilities
Waste Package
Performance Confirmation
Regulatory, Infrastructure, and Management Support

Additional scope and cost details with respect to these major categories can be found in the references.

2.1.2 Basis of Estimate

Based upon the VA and the Expanded Environmental Impact Statement Feasibility Assessment (CRWMS M&O 1997), the EIS has specified thermal loading cases implementing alternatives for three alternative areal mass loadings (AMLs): "high," "intermediate," and "low" be addressed. These cases can be described as follows:

High Thermal Loading (HTL): Approximately 85 MTHM/acre which is based on the reference design case in the VA;
Intermediate Thermal Loading (ITL): Approximately 60 MTHM/acre which requires approximately 40% more emplacement area than the VA case; and
Low Thermal Loading (LTL): Approximately 25 MTHM/acre which requires approximately 240% more emplacement area than the VA base case.

As noted above and in the EIS, there are three optional inventory modules considered for each thermal loading case. They are referred to as: Base Case; Inventory Module 1; and Inventory Module 2. These are more fully explained below.

Base Case - Under this case, the repository would receive and dispose of a total of 70,000 MTHM of waste. The inventory would include: 63,000 MTHM of commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF), 8,315 canisters (4,667 MTHM) of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and 2,333 MTHM of Department of Energy (DOE) owned spent nuclear fuel (DSNF). The base case is identical to the current repository baseline in the VA design (63,000 MTHM-CSNF, 4,667 MTHM-HLW and 2,333 MTHM-DSNF).

Inventory Module 1 - This module would expand the Base Case such that the repository would receive and dispose of all CSNF (high-case projection 105,414 MTHM total), all of the HLW (approximately 22,280 canisters total, with 1,744 canisters containing immobilized plutonium), and 2,498 MTHM of DSNF. The projection of 105,414 MTHM for CSNF assumes that all licensed and operating reactors receive full extensions and operate to full life.

Inventory Module 2 - This module would expand the repository beyond Module 1 to receive and dispose of other radioactive wastes suitable for geologic disposal. Module 2 would include 2,054 cubic meters of commercial greater-than-class-C (GTCC) waste and 4,017 cubic meters of DOE-owned special performance assessment required (SPAR) waste.

The specific differences, impacts, design variances, and details are contained in the respective engineering file descriptions and further elaborated on in the Expanded Environmental Impact Statement Feasibility Assessment (CRWMS M&O 1997). However, for the purposes of this summary report and to be consistent with previous estimates, the repository estimate was broken into five separate cost element estimates: Surface, Subsurface, Waste Packages, Performance Confirmation (PC), and Regulatory, Infrastructure and Management Services (RIMS). For the 70,000 MTHM HTL case the VA numbers were used. For ITL and LTL cases, the Subsurface and the PC estimates were factored upward to account for additional underground emplacement areas provided in the EIS engineering files. This factoring (or scaling) adjusted the VA underground data upward using estimates for additional tunneling requirements. PC estimates were adjusted similarly, while surface, waste package, and RIMS costs remained the same for each of the three thermal cases within similar disposal quantity cases.

Module 1 requires emplacement of approximately 105,000 MTHM of commercial SNF plus all the DOE SNF and HLW. Module 2 requires emplacement of all Module 1 waste plus GTCC and SPAR waste. The estimate for the five repository categories used recent TSLCC estimates as the basis to factor up the higher emplacement quantities. The Subsurface and PC estimates were factored similarly. Since the 105,000 MTHM quantity is based on estimated reactor life extensions, the operations at the Surface facilities will need to be extended an additional 10 years. However, it should be noted that the quantity of fuel to be transported from the reactors is not exactly the same receipt quantity of 3,000 MTHM per year used in the VA or TSLCC cost estimates. The receipt rate for the operating extension was smoothed downward from the 3,000 MTHM steady state over the last six years of operation for analysis purposes to represent reactor shutdowns following life extension. For the 105,000 MTHM Surface and RIMS estimates, adjustments were made extending their steady state estimates out an additional 10 years, but later reduced from the steady state values as noted. The waste package quantities were derived using the same logistic model which supported the VA and TSLCC cost estimates. However, the Module 2 estimate was adjusted upward from the Module 1 estimate to include the additional packages for other waste forms.

As noted in the VA and referenced engineering documentation, site boundaries can be expanded at Yucca Mountain to accept all the estimated waste. For the purposes of supporting the EIS, it is anticipated that the MTU limit will be increased; thus providing for extended waste inventory cases (as noted in the EIS). This would then increase surface, subsurface, and waste package requirements, size and areas for excavation, number of tunnels and emplacement drifts, emplacement time approximately 10 years, etc.

2.2 NON-REPOSITORY ELEMENTS OF COST AND BASIS OF ESTIMATES

2.2.1 Waste Acceptance, Storage, and Transportation (WAST)

Waste acceptance and transportation elements of the radioactive waste management system will accept SNF and HLW from commercial and government sites across the country and will transport the materials that will be stored in the repository. Information supporting this cost element is based upon data from the Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (TSLCC). Specifically, waste acceptance, storage, and transportation (WAST) estimates used the same logistic model and cost assumptions from the TSLCC to determine the costs for the 70,000 MTHM, Module 1, and Module 2 cases. The WAST estimates do not change between HTL, ITL, and LTL cases since the same quantities are shipped. For Module 2 estimates, data was adjusted upward from Module 1 estimates based upon data in the EIS engineering files which assumed additional waste packages and shipments for the GTCC and SPAR wastes.

2.2.2 Nevada Transportation

Nevada railroad transportation costs include those engineering, construction, and operational costs, along with contingency, to support a branch rail line in Nevada to the repository. A specific route will be chosen at a later time and will be integrated with WAST activities. Information supporting this cost element is based upon data from the TSLCC.

2.2.3 Program Integration

Program integration activities include systems engineering and integration, regulatory compliance, planning, international waste management and technology, and program control. Also included within this cost element are costs associated with regulatory and technical review board oversight, quality assurance (QA), human resources, and administration functions supporting DOE operations. The program integration costs only change between the 70,000 MTHM and Module 1 cases, and are not expected to change between the HTL, ITL, and LTL cases. Integration costs were based on the number of years of emplacement operations; information supporting this cost element is based upon data from the TSLCC.

2.2.4 Institutional

Institutional costs cover those elements prescribed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA 1982) and do not directly impact the design, licensing, construction, operations, monitoring, and/or closure of the repository. Major cost elements that make up this cost element include payments equal to taxes, benefits, and other financial assistance. Institutional costs only change between the 70,000 MTHM and Module 1 cases, and are not expected to change between the HTL, ITL, and LTL cases. Institutional costs were also based on the number of years of emplacement operations and TSLCC data.

3. MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

The cost estimates for the EIS are based on a set of assumptions about the project from the VA reference case as modified to accommodate specific differences affecting design as noted in the respective engineering files. The following, however, present some of the major assumptions for the overall repository and this analysis.

Cost estimates for the EIS cases are developed primarily based on previous project VA and TSLCC estimate data and are presented in constant 1999 dollars. For consistency with the VA and TSLCC, an escalation of 2.3% was used to convert 1998 dollars to 1999 dollars.

Rough estimates for the total costs were assumed an acceptable standard for use in evaluation of each case. Costs are based on the reference VA and TSLCC cost data and factored accordingly for increase capacities of the repository for each EIS case.

The waste allocation for the VA is considered the base or reference case and is a HTL Case made up of the following: 63,000 MTHM CSNF; 640 MTHM equivalent commercial HLW; 4,027 MTHM equivalent defense HLW; and 2,333 MTHM DOE SNF including US Naval SNF.

Current Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations limiting emplacement for a repository at Yucca Mountain to 70,000 MTU, or its equivalent, are assumed to be amended to allow for additional emplacement of inventories as contemplated by the EIS.

Beyond the base case of 70,000 MTHM (i.e., an HTL case), incremental variations affecting AML, number of waste packages, increases in MTHM inventories, etc. are assumed.

Waste package quantities are based on using the logistics model which supports VA and TSLCC cost estimates. Module 2 waste package estimates are factored upward from Module 1 cases due to assumed additional waste packages for GTCC and SPAR waste requirements.

Three alternative AML categories are considered for the EIS: HTL, ITL, and LTL. For each AML case, two variations in CSNF quantities are considered (i.e., 63,000 and 105,000 MTHM).

The EIS forecast for approximately 105,000 MTHM for CSNF assumes that licensed and operating reactors receive extensions and continue to be operational throughout their full operating license, and that no new additional reactors receive operating licenses from the NRC.

The base case assumes emplacement from 2010 to 2033 (or 24 years). Years to operate the surface facilities, subsurface emplacement operations, and supporting functions will vary depending upon loading cases; however, for amounts at 105,000 MTHM, an extra 10 years of facility operational costs.

All SNF and HLW will be shipped directly to the repository.

Receipt rates for an additional 10 year operational period are assumed constant for the first four years at 3,000 MTHM, dropping to 2,000 MTHM in the 5^th year, 1,400 MTHM in the 6^th year, 800 MTHM in the 7^th through the 9^th year, and 714 MTHM in the last year.

The repository will be designed to ensure that it can be kept open for at least 100 years after initial waste emplacement. For EIS cases, as in the base case, the repository will be closed and decommissioned by 2116.

There is no significant additional site characterization or collection of data contemplated to support potential repository expansion areas.

The pre-construction site and test facilities are temporary. Some will become part of the final repository layout. They will be upgraded as required.

Substantially complete construction of repository Surface facilities will be required for the initial receipt of SNF and HLW. Subsurface support facilities required for initial emplacement will also be completed, meanwhile underground construction will run concurrent with emplacement operations.

DOE will own and control land, water rights, and subsurface rights. DOE will formally dedicate the land for repository construction. Current cost-sharing and support arrangements with the Nevada Test Site will continue.

Costs associated with or supporting DOE program level activities, including national and Nevada transportation, program integration, etc. are not part of this analysis.

Requirements of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended for expenditures relating to Payment Equal To Taxes, Financial and Technical Assistance, and other benefits as defined by the NWPA will continue; however, these costs are not part of this analysis.

Contingency costs resulting from possible impacts such as schedule delays or other actions beyond the control of Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) are not included.

Repository design, construction, emplacement of waste, monitoring, as well as closure and decommissioning activities, will be conducted under the current Quality Assurance Requirements and Description (QARD) (DOE 1998c).

For the purposes of comparison of options within the EIS, the waste package arrangement within the drifts will be kept constant; however, the drift spacing will be adjusted to attain the intermediate and low AML values.

Defense HLW (DHLW) waste packages are placed between CSNF packages. The equivalent MTU content of DHLW has not been considered in waste package spacing calculations.

More detailed assumptions can be found within the reference EIS engineering files.

4. ESTIMATING METHODOLOGIES

The EIS costs estimates are rough estimates and follow generally accepted industry and DOE cost estimating guidelines. Factoring (or scaling) of costs was used based upon VA data. Where appropriate, adjustments were made upward depending upon the thermal loading case and any additional facility and emplacement tunnel requirements for each case. Estimating methodologies used in supporting the base case and this cost summary are as follows:

Parametric: A cost estimating technique requiring historical databases on similar systems or subsystems. Statistical analysis is performed on the data to find correlation between cost drivers and other system parameters, such as design or performance parameters (e.g., dollars per installed kilowatt, or length of commodity). The analysis produces cost equations or cost estimating relationships that can be used individually or grouped into more complex models.

Sampling: A technique to perform check estimates whereby only certain work items are evaluated. For example, it may be found that the estimated items costing $100 million or more account for 80 percent of the overall estimated cost in a specific cost element. The sampling technique might consist of evaluating only those items costing $100 million or more even though only a relatively small fraction of the overall work items in the estimate are evaluated.

Bottoms-Up: An estimating technique where the scope of work is quantified and divided into tasks, sub-tasks, steps, and functions required to accomplish an operation or produce a deliverable, and extending the quantities and unit prices associated with each task, sub-task, step, or function to arrive at a price derives detailed costs.

It should be noted that this summary report is primarily based on and supported by project cost estimates developed under the Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 1998a) and Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (DOE 1998b). As a result, some of the methods used in those estimates, e.g., bottoms-up, are incorporated by reference.

5. COST SUMMARY

The total cost estimates were prepared for each EIS case as supported by the surface, subsurface, and engineered barrier/waste package engineering files. Below, Table 5-1a presents a single point estimate for each case for future costs from 1999 to 2116, and Table 5-1b presents the estimate from 2002 to 2116. Tables 5-2a, b, and c provide a breakdown of the cost by each element for Base Case, Module 1, and Module 2 cases. It should be noted that all costs presented are rounded off from calculated values and are in 1999 dollars.

6. QUALITY

The EIS cost summaries were prepared following generally accepted industry and DOE cost estimating guidelines, and the summary report was prepared consistent with PRO-TS-003 Development of Technical Documents Not Subject to QARD Requirements, Rev. 1, effective December 21, 1998, as well as other guidance developed for the EIS. It should be noted that an evaluation "Environmental Impact Statement Support" (B00000000-01717-2200-00147 REV 01), dated February, 8, 1996, is on record and determined that these activities are not subject to the QARD.

7. REFERENCES

7.1 DOCUMENTS CITED

CRWMS M&O 1997. Expanded Environmental Impact Statement Feasibility Assessment. B00000000-01717-5705-00074 REV 00, Las Vegas, Nevada: Author. ACC: MOL.19980427.0183.

DOE 1998a. Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain, Volume. 5. DOE/RW-0508, December 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. ACC: MOL.19981007.0032.

DOE 1998b. Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. DOE/RW-0510, December 1998. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: HQO.19980901.0001.

DOE 1998c. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, REV 8, June 1998. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19980601.0022.

CRWMS M&O 1999a. Repository Surface Design Engineering Files Report. BCB000000-01717-5705-00009 REV 02, Las Vegas, Nevada: Author. ACC: MOL.19990310.0079.

CRWMS M&O 1999b. Engineering File � Subsurface Repository. BCA000000-01717-5705-00005 REV 01, Las Vegas, Nevada: Author. ACC: MOL.19990310.0078.

CRWMS M&O 1999c. Waste Package Final Update to EIS Engineering File. BBA000000-01717-5705-00019 REV 01, Las Vegas, Nevada: Author. ACC: MOL.19990330.0530.

7.2 CODES, STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Public Law 97-425, 42 U.S.C. 10101-10226. 1983. TIC: 216801.

Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Public Law 100-203, December 27, 1987, 100th Congress, Title V. TIC: 222510.

Previous Section | ~~Next Section~~