Nuclear Waste
Uncertainties About the Yucca Mountain Repository Project Gao ID: GAO-02-539T April 18, 2002As required by law, the Department of Energy (DOE) has been investigating a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine its suitability for disposing of highly radioactive wastes in a mined geologic repository. If the site is approved, DOE must apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for authorization to construct a repository. If the site is not approved for a license application, or if NRC denies a license to construct a repository, the administration and Congress will have to consider other options for the long-term management of existing and future nuclear wastes. DOE is not prepared to submit an acceptable license application to the NRC within the statutory limits that would take effect if the site is approved. DOE is unlikely to achieve its goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010. Sufficient time would not be available for DOE to obtain a license from NRC and construct enough of the repository to open it in 2010. Another key factor is whether DOE will be able to obtain the increases in annual funding that would be required to open the repository by 2010. DOE currently does not have a reliable estimate of when, and at what cost, a license application can be submitted or a repository can be opened because DOE stopped using its cost and schedule baselines to manage the site investigation in 1997.
GAO-02-539T, Nuclear Waste: Uncertainties About the Yucca Mountain Repository Project
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-539T
entitled 'Nuclear Waste: Uncertainties About the Yucca Mountain
Repository Project' which was released on March 21, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony: Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S.
Senate:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:30 a.m.
Thursday, March 21, 2002:
Nuclear Waste:
Uncertainties About the Yucca Mountain Repository Project:
Statement of (Ms.) Gary Jones, Director, Natural Resources and
Environment:
GAO-02-539T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Department of Energy‘s
(DOE) project to develop a nuclear waste repository. As required by law,
DOE has been investigating a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to
determine its suitability for disposing of highly radioactive wastes in
a mined geologic repository. On February 14, 2002, the secretary of
energy recommended to the president approval of this site for the
development of a nuclear waste repository. The next day, the president
recommended approval of the site to the Congress. The president‘s
recommendation began a statutory review process for the approval or
disapproval of the site, including action by the state of Nevada, the
Congress, DOE, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) within
specified time frames. If the site is approved, DOE must apply to NRC
for authorization (a license) to construct a repository. If the site is
not approved for a license application, or if NRC denies a license to
construct a repository, the administration and the Congress will have
to consider other options for the long-term management of existing and
future nuclear wastes.
Our testimony, which is based on our recent report on the Yucca Mountain
Repository Project,[Footnote 1] addresses (1) DOE‘s readiness to submit
a license application within the statutory time frame, (2) the extent
to which DOE can meet its goal of opening a repository at Yucca
Mountain in 2010, and (3) the extent to which DOE is managing the
project consistent with applicable departmental procedures.
Summary:
DOE is not prepared to submit an acceptable license application to NRC
within the statutory limits that would take effect if the site is
approved. The president‘s recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site to
the Congress triggered specific statutory time frames for the next
steps in the repository project. Nevada now has 60 days from February
15 to disapprove the site, and if the state does so, the Congress has
90 days (of continuous session) in which to enact legislation
overriding the state‘s disapproval. If the Congress enacts such
legislation, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires DOE to then submit a
license application to NRC within 90 days of the effective date of the
legislation. Thus, the process gives DOE about 5 to 8 months from the
date of the president‘s recommendation to submit the license
application. However, in a September 2001 detailed reassessment of the
work required to submit a license application that would be acceptable
to NRC, DOE‘s managing contractor concluded that DOE would not be in a
position to submit the application to NRC until January 2006, or about
4 years from now. Moreover, while a site recommendation and a license
application are separate processes, essentially the same data are
needed for both. Waiting until DOE was closer to having the additional
information needed to support an acceptable license application would
have put DOE in a better position to submit the application within the
time frames set out in the law, and to respond to questions and
challenges that may emanate from the statutory review process
subsequent to the president‘s recommendation.
DOE is unlikely to achieve its goal of opening a repository at Yucca
Mountain by 2010. On the basis of DOE‘s managing contractor‘s September
2001 reassessment, sufficient time would not be available for DOE to
obtain a license from NRC and construct enough of the repository to
open it in 2010. Another key factor is whether DOE will be able to
obtain the increases in annual funding that would be required to open
the repository by 2010. Because of the uncertainty of meeting the 2010
goal, DOE is exploring alternative approaches, such as developing
surface facilities for storing waste at the site until sufficient
underground disposal facilities can be constructed. Had DOE elected to
defer a site recommendation until it was closer to having an acceptable
license application, it could have ensured that the site recommendation
was based on the approach to developing a repository that it intends to
follow. This would have enabled DOE to develop an estimated schedule to
design and build the preferred approach and to estimate its cost,
including the annual funding requirements, as part of the information
on which to make a site recommendation.
DOE currently does not have a reliable estimate of when, and at what
cost, a license application can be submitted or a repository can be
opened because DOE stopped using its cost and schedule baselines to
manage the site investigation in 1997. DOE needs to reestablish a
baseline for the repository program that accounts for the outstanding
technical work needed to prepare an acceptable license application and
the estimated schedule and cost to achieve this milestone. In
conjunction, DOE needs to use the baseline as a tool for managing the
program, in accordance with the department‘s policies and procedures
for managing major projects. Therefore, our December 2001 report
recommended that the secretary of energy reestablish the baseline
through the submission of a license application and follow the
department‘s management requirements, including a formal procedure for
changing program milestones. According to DOE, it is currently in the
process of establishing a new baseline for the nuclear waste program.
Background:
Recognizing the critical need to address the issue of nuclear waste
disposal, the Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to
establish a comprehensive policy and program for the safe, permanent
disposal of commercial spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes in
one or more mined geologic repositories. The act created the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management within DOE to manage its nuclear
waste program. Amendments to the act in 1987 directed DOE to
investigate only the Yucca Mountain site.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also set out important and complementary
roles for other federal agencies:
* The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was required to establish
health and safety standards for the disposal of wastes in repositories.
EPA issued standards for the Yucca Mountain site in June 2001 that
require a high probability of safety for at least 10,000 years.
[Footnote 2]
* NRC is responsible for licensing and regulating repositories to
ensure their compliance with EPA‘s standards. One prerequisite to the
secretary‘s recommendation was obtaining NRC‘s preliminary comments on
the sufficiency of DOE‘s site investigation for the purpose of a license
application. NRC provided these comments on November 13, 2001. If the
site is approved, then NRC, upon accepting a license application from
DOE, has 3 to 4 years to review the application and decide whether to
issue a license to construct, and then to operate, a repository at the
site.[Footnote 3]
* The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (the board) reviews the
technical and scientific validity of DOE‘s activities associated with
investigating the site and packaging and transporting wastes. The board
must report its findings and recommendations to the Congress and the
secretary of energy at least twice each year, but DOE is not required to
implement these recommendations.
DOE has designated the nuclear waste program, including the site
investigation, as a ’major“ program that is subject to senior
management‘s attention and to its agencywide guidelines for managing
such programs and projects. The guidelines require the development of a
cost and schedule baseline, a system for managing changes to the
baseline, and independent cost and schedule reviews. DOE is using a
management contractor to carry out the work on the program. The
contractor develops and maintains the baseline, but senior DOE managers
must approve significant changes to cost or schedule estimates. In
February 2001, DOE hired Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC (Bechtel), to manage
the program and required the contractor to reassess the remaining
technical work and the estimated schedule and cost to complete this
work.
DOE Will Not Be Ready to Submit a License Application within the
Statutory Time Frame:
DOE is not prepared to submit an acceptable license application to NRC
within the statutory limits that would take effect if the site is
approved. Specifically, DOE has entered into 293 agreements with NRC to
gather and/or analyze additional technical information in preparation
for a license application that NRC would accept. DOE is also continuing
to address technical issues raised by the board. In September 2001,
Bechtel concluded, after reassessing the remaining technical work, that
DOE would not be ready to submit an acceptable license application to
NRC until January 2006. Moreover, while a site recommendation and a
license application are separate processes, DOE will need to use
essentially the same data for both.[Footnote 4] Also, the act states
that the president‘s recommendation to the Congress is that he
considers the site qualified for an application to NRC for a license.
The president‘s recommendation also triggers an express statutory time
frame that requires DOE to submit a license application to NRC within
about 5 to 8 months.
DOE Lacks Information for a License Application:
The 293 agreements that DOE and NRC have negotiated address areas of
study within the program where NRC‘s staff has determined that DOE
needs to collect more scientific data and/or improve its technical
assessment of the data. According to NRC, as of March 4, 2002, DOE had
satisfactorily completed work on 38 of these agreements and could
resolve another 22 agreements by September 30 of this year. These 293
agreements generally relate to uncertainties about three aspects of the
long-term performance of the proposed repository: (1) the expected
lifetime of engineered barriers, particularly the waste containers; (2)
the physical properties of the Yucca Mountain site; and (3) the
supporting information for the mathematical models used to evaluate the
performance of the planned repository at the site.
The uncertainties related to engineered barriers revolve around the
longevity of the waste containers that would be used to isolate the
wastes. DOE currently expects that these containers would isolate the
wastes from the environment for more than 10,000 years. Minimizing
uncertainties about the container materials and the predicted
performance of the waste containers over this long time period is
especially critical because DOE‘s estimates of the repository system‘s
performance depend heavily on the waste containers, in addition to the
natural features of the site, to meet NRC‘s licensing regulations and
EPA‘s health and safety standards.
The uncertainties related to the physical characteristics of the site
center on how the combination of heat, water, and chemical processes
caused by the presence of nuclear waste in the repository would affect
the flow of water through the repository.
The NRC staff‘s concerns about DOE‘s mathematical models for assessing
the performance of the repository primarily relate to validating the
models; that is, presenting information to provide confidence that the
models are valid for their intended use and verifying the information
used in the models. Performance assessment is an analytical method that
relies on computers to operate mathematical models to assess the
performance of the repository against EPA‘s health and safety
standards, NRC‘s licensing regulations, and DOE‘s guidelines for
determining if the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a repository.
DOE uses the data collected during site characterization activities to
model how a repository‘s natural and engineered features would perform
at the site.
According to DOE, the additional technical work surrounding the 293
agreements with NRC‘s staff is an insignificant addition to the
extensive amount of technical work already completed”including some 600
papers cited in one of its recently published reports and a substantial
body of published analytic literature. DOE does not expect the results
of the additional work to change its current performance assessment of a
repository at Yucca Mountain.
From NRC‘s perspective, however, the agreements provided the basis for
it to give DOE its preliminary comments on the sufficiency of DOE‘s
investigation of the Yucca Mountain site for inclusion in a future
license application. In a November 13, 2001, letter to the under
secretary of energy, the Chairman of the NRC commented that:
’although significant additional work is needed prior to the submission
of a possible license application, we believe that agreements reached
between DOE and NRC staff regarding the collection of additional
information provide the basis for concluding that development of an
acceptable license application is achievable.“
The board has also consistently raised issues and concerns over DOE‘s
understanding of the expected lifetime of the waste containers, the
significance of the uncertainties involved in the modeling of the
scientific data, and the need for an evaluation and comparison of a
repository design having a higher temperature with a design having a
lower temperature. The board continues to reiterate these concerns in
its reports. For example, in its most recent report to the Congress and
the secretary of energy, issued on January 24, 2002, the board
concluded that, when DOE‘s technical and scientific work is taken as a
whole, the technical basis for DOE‘s repository performance estimates
is ’weak to moderate“ at this time. The board added that gaps in data
and basic understanding cause important uncertainties in the concepts
and assumptions on which DOE‘s performance estimates are now based;
providing the board with limited confidence in current performance
estimates generated by DOE performance assessment model.
As recently as May 2001, DOE projected that it could submit a license
application to NRC in 2003. It now appears, however, that DOE may not
complete all of the additional technical work that it has agreed to do
to prepare an acceptable license application until January 2006. In
September 2001, Bechtel completed, at DOE‘s direction, a detailed
reassessment in an effort to reestablish a cost and schedule baseline.
Bechtel estimated that DOE could complete the outstanding technical
work agreed to with NRC and submit a license application in January
2006. This date, according to the contractor, was due to the cumulative
effect of funding reductions in recent years that had produced a
’...growing bow wave of incomplete work that is being pushed into the
future.“ Moreover, the contractor‘s report said, the proposed schedule
did not include any cost and schedule contingencies. The contractor‘s
estimate was based on guidance from DOE that, in part, directed the
contractor to assume annual funding for the nuclear waste program of
$410 million in fiscal year 2002, $455 million in fiscal year 2003, and
$465 million in fiscal year 2004 and thereafter.[Footnote 5] DOE has
not accepted this estimate because, according to program officials, the
estimate would extend the date for submitting a license application too
far into the future. Instead, DOE accepted only the fiscal year 2002
portion of Bechtel‘s detailed work plan and directed the contractor to
prepare a new plan for submitting a license application to NRC by
December 2004.
Essentially the Same Information Is Needed for a Site Recommendation
and a License Application:
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, DOE‘s site characterization
activities are to provide information necessary to evaluate the Yucca
Mountain site‘s suitability for submitting a license application to NRC
for placing a repository at the site. In implementing the act, DOE‘s
guidelines provide that the site will be suitable as a waste repository
if the site is likely to meet the radiation protection standards that
NRC would use to reach a licensing decision on the proposed repository.
Thus, as stated in the preamble (introduction) to DOE‘s guidelines, DOE
expects to use essentially the same data for the site recommendation
and the license application.
In addition, the act specifies that, having received a site
recommendation from the secretary, the president shall submit a
recommendation of the site to the Congress if the president considers
the site qualified for a license application. Under the process laid
out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, once the secretary makes a site
recommendation, there is no time limit under which the president must
act on the secretary‘s recommendation. However, when the president
recommended, on February 15, that the Congress approve the site,
specific statutory time frames were triggered for the next steps in the
process. Figure 1 shows the approximate statutory time needed between a
site recommendation and submission of a license application and the
additional time needed for DOE to meet the conditions for an acceptable
license application. The figure assumes that Nevada disapproves the
site but that the Congress overrides the state‘s disapproval. As shown
in the figure, Nevada has 60 days”until April 16”to disapprove the
site, and if disapproved, the Congress has 90 days (of continuous
session) in which to enact legislation overriding the state‘s
disapproval. If the Congress overrides the state‘s disapproval and the
site designation takes effect, the next step is for the secretary to
submit a license application to NRC within 90 days after the site
designation is effective. In total, these statutory time frames provide
about 150 to 240 days, or about 5 to 8 months, from the time the
president makes a recommendation to DOE‘s submittal of a license
application. On the basis of Bechtel‘s September 2001 program
reassessment, however, DOE would not be ready to submit a license
application to NRC until January 2006.
Figure 1: Comparison of Statutory Site Approval Process with DOE‘s
Projected Schedule:
[Refer to PDF for image]
Secretary of Energy recommends site to the President: February 14.
Statutory time: From February 15, 2002; about 5 to 8 months:
President recommends site to Congress; 60 days later:
Nevada disapproves site: April 8; 90 days[A] later:
If Congress overrides Nevada's disapproval, site is approved; 90 days
later:
DOE required to submit license application.
Additional time needed to meet agreements with NRC for an acceptable
license application: from end of statutory time through January 2006 (2
1/2 years or more):
DOE able to submit acceptable license application.
[A] Ninety calendar days of continuous session of the Congress.
[End of figure]
DOE Is Unlikely to Open a Repository in 2010 As Planned:
DOE states that it may be able to open a repository at Yucca Mountain in
2010. The department has based this expectation on submitting an
acceptable license application to NRC in 2003, receiving NRC‘s
authorization to construct a repository in 2006, and constructing
essential surface and underground facilities by 2010. However, Bechtel,
in its September 2001 proposal for reestablishing technical, schedule,
and cost baselines for the program, concluded that January 2006 is a
more realistic date for submitting a license application. Because of
uncertainty over when DOE may be able to open the repository, the
department is exploring alternatives that might still permit it to
begin accepting commercial spent fuel in 2010.
Extension of License Application Date Will Likely Postpone 2010
Repository Goal:
An extension of the license application date to 2006 would almost
certainly preclude DOE from achieving its long-standing goal of opening
a repository in 2010. According to DOE‘s May 2001 report on the
program‘s estimated cost, after submitting a license application in
2003, DOE estimates that it could receive an authorization to construct
the repository in 2006 and complete the construction of enough surface
and underground facilities to open the repository in 2010, or 7 years
after submitting the license application. This 7-year estimate from
submittal of the license application to the initial construction and
operation of the repository assumes that NRC would grant an
authorization to construct the facility in 3 years, followed by 4 years
of construction. Assuming these same estimates of time, submitting a
license application in January 2006 would extend the opening date for
the repository until about 2013.
Furthermore, opening the repository in 2013 may be questionable for
several reasons. First, a repository at Yucca Mountain would be a first-
of-a-kind facility, meaning that any schedule projections may be
optimistic. DOE has deferred its original target date for opening a
repository from 1998 to 2003 to 2010. Second, although the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act states that NRC has 3 years to decide on a
construction license, a fourth year may be added if NRC certifies that
it is necessary. Third, the 4-year construction time period that DOE‘s
current schedule allows may be too short. For example, a contractor
hired by DOE to independently review the estimated costs and schedule
for the nuclear waste program reported that the 4-year construction
period was too optimistic and recommended that the construction phase
be extended by a year-and-a-half.[Footnote 6] Bechtel anticipates a 5-
year period of construction between the receipt of a construction
authorization from NRC and the opening of the repository. A 4-year
licensing period followed by 5 years of initial construction could
extend the repository opening until about 2015.
Finally, these simple projections do not account for any other factors
that could adversely affect this 7- to 9-year schedule for licensing,
constructing, and opening the repository. Annual appropriations for the
program in recent years have been less than $400 million. In contrast,
according to DOE, it needs between $750 million and $1.5 billion in
annual appropriations during most of the 7- to 9-year licensing and
construction period in order to open the repository on that schedule.
In its August 2001 report on alternative means for financing and
managing the program, DOE stated that unless the program‘s funding is
increased, the budget might become the ’determining factor“ whether DOE
will be able to accept wastes in 2010.[Footnote 7]
In part, DOE‘s desire to meet the 2010 goal is linked to the court
decisions that DOE”under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and as
implemented by DOE‘s contracts with owners of commercial spent fuel”is
obligated to begin accepting spent fuel from contract holders not later
than January 31, 1998, or be held liable for damages. Courts are
currently assessing the amount of damages that DOE must pay to holders
of spent fuel disposal contracts. Estimates of potential damages for
the estimated 12-year delay from 1998 to 2010 range widely from the
department‘s estimate of about $2 billion to $3 billion to the nuclear
industry‘s estimate of at least 50 billion. The damage estimates are
based, in part, on the expectation that DOE would begin accepting spent
fuel from contract holders in 2010. The actual damages could be higher
or lower, depending on when DOE begins accepting spent fuel.
DOE Is Reviewing Alternative Ways to Accept Wastes in 2010:
Because of the uncertainty of achieving the 2010 goal for opening the
Yucca Mountain repository, DOE is examining alternative approaches that
would permit it to meet the goal. For example, in a May 2001 report, DOE
examined approaches that might permit it to begin accepting wastes at
the repository site in 2010 while spreading out the construction of
repository facilities over a longer time period. The report recommended
storing wastes on the surface until the capacity to move wastes into
the repository has been increased. Relatively modest-sized initial
surface facilities to handle wastes could be expanded later to handle
larger volumes of waste. Such an approach, according to the report,
would permit partial construction and limited waste emplacement in the
repository, at lower than earlier estimated annual costs, in advance of
the more costly construction of the facility as originally planned.
Also, by implementing a modular approach, DOE would be capable of
accepting wastes at the repository earlier than if it constructed the
repository described in the documents that the secretary used to
support a site recommendation.
DOE has also contracted with the National Research Council to provide
recommendations on design and operating strategies for developing a
geologic repository in stages, which is to include reviewing DOE‘s
modular approach. The council is addressing such issues as the (1)
technical, policy, and societal objectives and risks for developing a
staged repository; (2) effects of developing a staged repository on the
safety and security of the facility and the effects on the cost and
public acceptance of such a facility; and (3) strategies for developing
a staged system, including the design, construction, operation, and
closing of such a facility. The council expects to publish interim and
final reports on the study in late March 2002 and in December 2002,
respectively.
DOE‘s Current License Application Milestone Date Is Not Supported by the
Program‘s Baseline:
As of December 2001, DOE expected to submit the application to NRC in
2003.[Footnote 8] This date reflects a delay in the license application
milestone date last approved by DOE in March 1997 that targeted March
2002 for submitting a license application. The 2003 date was not
formally approved by DOE‘s senior managers or incorporated into the
program‘s cost and schedule baseline, as required by the management
procedures that were in effect for the program. At least three
extensions for the license application date have been proposed and used
by DOE in program documents, but none of these proposals have been
approved as required. As a result, DOE does not have a baseline
estimate of the program‘s schedule and cost”including the late 2004
date in its fiscal year 2003 budget request”that is based on all the
work that it expects to complete through the submission of a license
application.
DOE‘s guidance for managing major programs and projects requires, among
other things, that senior managers establish a baseline for managing
the program or project. The baseline describes the program‘s mission”in
this case, the safe disposal of highly radioactive waste in a geologic
repository”and the expected technical requirements, schedule, and cost
to complete the program. Procedures for controlling changes to an
approved baseline are designed to ensure that program managers consider
the expected effects of adding, deleting, or modifying technical work,
as well as the effects of unanticipated events, such as funding
shortfalls, on the project‘s mission and baseline. In this way,
alternative courses of action can be assessed on the basis of each
action‘s potential effect on the baseline. DOE‘s procedures for
managing the nuclear waste program require that program managers revise
the baseline, as appropriate, to reflect any significant changes to the
program.
After March 1997, according to DOE officials, they did not always follow
these control procedures to account for proposed changes to the
program‘s baseline, including the changes proposed to extend the date
for license application. According to these same officials, they stopped
following the control procedures because the secretary of energy did not
approve proposed extensions to the license application milestone. As a
result, the official baseline did not accurately reflect the program‘s
cost and schedule to complete the remaining work necessary to submit a
license application.
In November 1999, the Yucca Mountain site investigation office proposed
extending the license application milestone date by 10 months, from
March to December 2002, to compensate for a $57.8 million drop in
funding for fiscal year 2000. A proposed extension in the license
application milestone required the approval of both the director of the
nuclear waste program and the secretary of energy. Neither of these
officials approved this proposed change nor was the baseline revised to
reflect this change even though the director subsequently began
reporting the December 2002 date in quarterly performance reports to
the deputy secretary of energy. The site investigation office
subsequently proposed two other extensions of the license application
milestone, neither of which was approved by the program‘s director or
the secretary of energy or incorporated into the baseline for the
program. Nevertheless, DOE began to use the proposed, but unapproved,
milestone dates in both internal and external reports and
communications, such as in congressional testimony delivered in May
2001.
Because senior managers did not approve these proposed changes for
incorporation into the baseline for the program, program managers did
not adjust the program‘s cost and schedule baseline. By not accounting
for these and other changes to the program‘s technical work, milestone
dates, and estimated costs in the program‘s baseline since March 1997,
DOE has not had baseline estimates of all of the technical work that it
expected to complete through submission of a license application and
the estimated schedule and cost to complete this work. This condition
includes the cost and schedule information contained in DOE‘s budget
request for fiscal year 2003.
When DOE hired Bechtel to manage the nuclear waste program, one of the
contractor‘s first assignments was to document the remaining technical
work that had to be completed to support the submission of a license
application to NRC and to estimate the time and cost to complete this
work. The contractor‘s revised, unofficial baseline for the program
shows that it will take until January 2006 to complete essential
technical work and submit an acceptable license application. Also, DOE
had estimated that completing the remaining technical work would add
about $1.4 billion to the cumulative cost of the program, bringing the
total cost of the Yucca Mountain project‘s portion of the nuclear waste
program to $5.5 billion.[Footnote 9] As noted earlier, DOE accepted
only the fiscal year 2002 portion of the proposed baseline and then
directed the contractor to prepare a plan for submitting a license
application to NRC by December 2004.
Because of these management weaknesses, we recommended in our
December 2001 report that the secretary of energy reestablish the
baseline through the submission of a license application and follow the
department‘s management requirements, including a formal procedure for
changing program milestones. According to DOE, it is currently in the
process of establishing a new baseline for the nuclear waste program.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or members of the subcommittee may
have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841. Dwayne Weigel, Daniel Feehan, Doreen Feldman, Susan
Irwin, and Robert Sanchez also made key contributions to this
statement.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule,
and Cost Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-191] (Washington, D.C.:
Dec. 21, 2001).
[2] The Energy Policy Act of 1992 required EPA to establish specific
health and safety standards for a repository at Yucca Mountain.
[3] The acceptance of a license application is not the same as
approving an application. A decision to approve or disapprove any
application would be made by NRC following extensive review and
testing.
[4] See General Guidelines for the Recommendation of Sites for Nuclear
Waste Repositories; Yucca Mountain Site Suitability Guidelines
(preamble), 66 Fed. Reg. 57298, 57322 (Nov. 14, 2001).
[5] DOE‘s budget request for fiscal year 2003 is about $527 million, or
$72 million more than assumed in Bechtel‘s reassessment. The
preliminary amounts for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 are $538 million and
$550 million, respectively.
[6] U.S. Department of Energy, Independent Cost Estimate Review of the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, 2001 Total System Life
Cycle Cost (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2001).
[7] U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Means of Financing and
Managing the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/RW-0546
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001).
[8] DOE‘s 2003 budget request states that DOE now expects to submit the
license application between October and December 2004.
[9] DOE estimated that the program cost $4.1 billion, on the basis of
year-of-expenditure dollars from the program‘s inception in 1983
through March 2002. The $5.5 billion estimate for the license
application is based on year-of-expenditure dollars from 1983 through
January 2006.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
