31
Figure 13. Deep Borehole Disposal Concept 63
requirements concerning retrievability at 0 mined repository sites (at 40 Code of Federal Active near-surface flow Mined Regulations [CFR] 191 and 10 CFR 60.111 MR Repository (b)) are appropriate and should be retained. Sluggish flow or These requirements are intended to ensure diffusion at depth that emplaced waste can be removed if the Increasing groundwater repository is not behaving as anticipated or salinity & density if its performance is called into question for any reason prior to permanent closure62— km they are not intended for the purpose of retaining easy access to emplaced materials for possible later recovery and reuse. Past Disposal evaluations have indicated that a wide zone Lateral hydraulic flow range of candidate mined repository sites in - 30m in 105 years different geologic media (including granite, salt and volcanic tuff) could meet these 7 existing retrievability requirements. On the other hand, we recognize pertinent details, some general conclusions about cost can be that the same level of retrievability may not be practical or reached based on work performed for the Yucca Mountain necessary in the context of other disposal approaches, such as project and other information. deep boreholes. In that case, related regulatory requirements A 2008 DOE life-cycle cost estimate64 arrived at a figure and time periods can and should be reassessed as part of a of $96.2 billion (in 2007 dollars) to license, construct, larger evaluation of disposal system performance objectives. operate and close a repository at Yucca Mountain of On the subject of reversibility, the Commission views this sufficient size to dispose of a total of 122,000 metric tons attribute as an important part of what we believe should be a of commercial and defense-origin spent fuel and high-level staged, adaptive approach to waste management and disposal waste (note that the legislated capacity of Yucca Mountain is in the United States more generally. The details of such an 70,000 metric tons until a second repository is in operation). approach are discussed at length in chapter 6 of this report. The cost share assigned to the 109,000 tons of commerciallyFor purposes of this discussion, it suffices to note that for a generated wastes assumed for disposal was about 80 percent program to be adaptive there needs to be some capacity to of the $96.2 billion total, or approximately $77 billion. reverse course, at least for a period of time. Flexibility of this That same year, DOE produced a detailed report “to kind is needed because implementing a disposal program will evaluate whether the collection of the [nuclear waste] fee will take at least several generations, during which technology provide sufficient revenues to offset the commercial utilities’ and values are sure to evolve—albeit in unpredictable ways. share of the total life cycle costs of the Civilian Radioactive While there is general consensus that we cannot rely on active Waste Management Program.”65 The report concluded management of nuclear waste disposal facilities over the many that the “the fee is adequate and [DOE] finds no reason to millennia of safety and environmental concern, an adaptive, adjust the fee at this time.” This conclusion echoes past fee staged approach requires this flexibility in the near term, evaluations which, over two-plus decades of the nation’s when it is reasonable to have confidence that the institutional nuclear waste management program, concluded that the oversight and management capacity to implement responsible current one-tenth of one cent per kilowatt-hour collected course corrections will be available. for spent fuel management would be sufficient to pay for
4.5 Cost of Disposal The Commission heard many comments regarding the costs of nuclear waste management generally and the costs of nuclear waste disposal in particular. While it is impossible to prepare detailed cost estimates for an integrated U.S. nuclear waste management system without knowing the specific facilities and sites that will be used for waste management and many other
disposal of the nation’s spent commercial reactor fuel. It is important to stress that judgments about the adequacy of current fee payments to cover anticipated disposal costs are separate from the question of whether the current fee mechanism is working as intended to make fee payments available to fund the waste management program. The latter issue is the subject of chapter 8 of this report.
R e p o r t t o t h e S e c r e ta r y o f E n e r g y
