Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of the
Yucca Mountain Repository Project (21-DEC-01, GAO-02-191).	 
								 
The administration's energy policy reflects renewed interest in  
expanding nuclear power as a source of electricity. However, the 
nation does not have a facility to permanently dispose of highly 
radioactive spent fuel from existing commercial nuclear power	 
plants. As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the 
Department of Energy (DOE) has been studying a site at Yucca	 
Mountain, Nevada, to determine its suitability for disposing of  
highly radioactive wastes in a mined geologic repository.	 
Recommending to the President that the Yucca Mountain site is	 
suitable for a repository is within the discretion of the	 
Secretary of Energy but may be premature. Once the President	 
considers the site qualified for a license application and	 
recommends the site to Congress, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act	 
requires DOE to submit a license application to the Nuclear	 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) within five to eight months. On the  
basis of information GAO reviewed, DOE will be unable to submit  
an acceptable application to NRC within the statutory time frames
for several years because of unresolved technical issues. DOE is 
unlikely to achieve its goal of opening a repository at Yucca	 
Mountain by 2010 and currently does not have a reliable estimate 
of when, and at what cost, such a repository can be opened. Since
DOE stopped using the cost and schedule baseline to manage the	 
site investigation in 1997, the repository program's baseline has
not reflected changes in the program.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-191 					        
    ACCNO:   A02614						        
  TITLE:     Nuclear Waste: Technical, Schedule, and Cost	      
Uncertainties of the Yucca Mountain Repository Project		 
     DATE:   12/21/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Nuclear energy					 
	     Energy law 					 
	     Energy legislation 				 
	     Nuclear waste storage				 
	     Radioactive wastes 				 
	     Nuclear powerplants				 
	     Yucca Mountain (NV)				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-191
     
Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

December 2001 NUCLEAR WASTE Technical, Schedule, and Cost Uncertainties of
the Yucca Mountain Repository Project

GAO- 02- 191

Page i GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 Background 5 It May Be Premature for DOE to Make a Site
Recommendation 7 DOE Is Unlikely to Open a Repository in 2010 as Planned 16
Conclusions 22 Recommendations for Executive Action 23 Agency Comments and
Our Evaluation 24 Scope and Methodology 27

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Energy 31

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35 GAO Contact 35
Acknowledgments 35

Figure

Figure 1: Comparison of Statutory Site Approval Process With DOE?s Projected
Schedule 16

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency GAO General
Accounting Office NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission OCRWM Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management USGS U. S. Geological Survey Contents

Page 1 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

December 21, 2001 The Honorable Harry Reid Chairman, Subcommittee on
Transportation,

Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Shelley Berkley House of Representatives

As reflected in the administration?s energy policy, there is renewed
interest in expanding nuclear power as a source of electricity. At the same
time, the nation currently does not have a facility to permanently dispose
of the highly radioactive spent (used) fuel from existing commercial nuclear
power plants. In lieu of such a facility, plant owners are currently holding
about 40,000 metric tons of spent fuel in temporary storage at 72 plant
sites in 36 states. In addition, the Department of Energy (DOE) estimates
that it has over 100 million gallons of highly radioactive waste and 2,500
metric tons of spent fuel from the development of nuclear weapons and from
research activities in temporary storage. Because these wastes contain
radioactive elements that remain active for hundreds of thousands of years,
the permanent isolation of the wastes is critical for safeguarding public
health, cleaning up DOE?s nuclear facilities, and providing a reasonable
basis for increasing the number of nuclear power plants.

As required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in 1987, DOE
has been studying one site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine its
suitability for disposing of highly radioactive wastes in a mined geologic
repository. If the Secretary of Energy decides to recommend this site to the
President, the recommendation would begin a statutory process for the
approval or disapproval of the site that will involve the President, the
state of Nevada, and the Congress. In addition, a subsequent presidential
site recommendation would trigger statutory time frames for action by the
state, the Congress, DOE, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). If
the site is recommended and approved, DOE must apply to NRC for a license to
construct a repository. If the site is not recommended and approved for a
license application, or if NRC denied a license to construct a repository,
the administration and the Congress would have to consider other options for
the long- term management of existing and future nuclear wastes.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Site investigation activities at Yucca Mountain include studies of the
physical characteristics of the mountain and potential waste containers. The
investigation also includes the development and use of mathematical models
to measure the probability that various combinations of natural and
engineered (man- made) features of a repository could safely contain wastes
for 10,000 years. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set health
and safety standards for a repository at Yucca Mountain that require a high
probability of safety for at least that period of time. DOE?s criteria for
determining if the site is suitable for a repository and the NRC?s licensing
regulations are consistent with these standards. 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. DOE?s management 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.

In 1996, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act obligated DOE to start disposing of
the spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants no later than January
31, 1998. In 1998, because DOE could not meet this deadline, the U. S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in another case that plant owners
are entitled to damages. One of the major issues in the determination of
damages is the schedule under which DOE will begin accepting the spent fuel.
DOE does not expect to complete the sequence of site approval, licensing,
and construction of enough of the repository facilities at Yucca Mountain to
open it until at least 2010. Courts in these 2 cases and 16 cases brought by
other utilities are currently assessing the amount of damages that DOE owes
the plant owners for delaying the disposal of their wastes by the estimated
12- year delay. Estimates of the potential damages vary widely, from DOE?s
estimate of about $2 billion to the nuclear industry?s estimate of $50
billion.

Given these circumstances and questions raised about DOE?s investigation of
the Yucca Mountain site, you asked us to determine the extent to which

Page 3 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

 DOE has completed the work necessary to support a site recommendation for
the development of a repository at Yucca Mountain and  DOE?s goal of
opening a repository at Yucca Mountain in 2010 is

reasonable. Recommending to the President that the Yucca Mountain site is
suitable for a repository is within the discretion of the Secretary of
Energy but, for the reasons noted below, may be premature. Once the
President considers the site qualified for a license application and
recommends the site to the Congress, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires
DOE to submit a license application to NRC within about 5 to 8 months. 1 On
the basis of information we reviewed, DOE will not be able to submit an
acceptable application to NRC 2 within the express statutory time frames for
several years because it will take that long to resolve many technical
issues. Specifically, DOE is currently gathering and analyzing technical
information required to satisfy 293 agreements that it made with NRC.
According to NRC, completing this ongoing technical work is essential for it
to accept a license application from DOE. Some of these agreements, for
example, provide for the additional study of how water would flow through
the repository area to the underlying groundwater and the durability of
waste containers to last for thousands of years. Many of the technical
issues that were the subject of these agreements have also been of concern
to the U. S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which was established by
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to review the technical and scientific validity
of DOE?s investigation of Yucca Mountain. Bechtel?s September 2001 detailed
reassessment of the work required to submit a license application, including
the 293 agreements with NRC and assuming expected funding levels, concluded
that DOE would be in a position to submit a license application to NRC in
January 2006, or about 4 years from now. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
and DOE?s siting guidelines,

1 If the President makes a recommendation to the Congress, Nevada has 60
days to disapprove the site. If disapproved, the Congress has 90 days of
continuous session to enact legislation overriding a disapproval. If the
Congress overrides the state?s disapproval, the Secretary is required to
submit a license application to NRC within 90 days after the site
recommendation is effective. These time frames provide about 150 to 240
days, or about 5 to 8 months, from the time the President recommends the
site until DOE submits a license application.

2 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. Results in Brief

Page 4 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

while a site recommendation and a license application are separate
processes, DOE will need to use essentially the same data for both.

On the basis of the information we reviewed, DOE is unlikely to achieve its
goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain by 2010 and currently does
not have a reliable estimate of when, and at what cost, such a repository
can be opened. Since DOE stopped using the cost and schedule baseline to
manage the site investigation in 1997, the repository program?s baseline has
not reflected changes in the program. For example, when the program?s fiscal
year 2000 appropriation was $57.8 million less than requested, DOE deferred
some planned technical work without adjusting the baseline to reflect this
action. As a result, it was not clearly visible when, and at what cost, the
site investigation would be completed and a license application submitted to
NRC. Bechtel, in its September 2001 detailed reassessment, concluded, on the
basis of expected program funding, that DOE could submit the application in
January 2006 at a total cost of $5.5 billion. This date is approximately 4
years later, and the $5.5 billion figure is about $1.4 billion more than
DOE?s projection in 1997. Using Bechtel?s estimate, 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. Therefore, DOE is exploring
alternative approaches to opening a repository in 2010, such as developing
surface facilities for storing waste at the site until sufficient
underground disposal facilities can be constructed.

We are recommending that the Secretary of Energy fully consider the timing
of the statutory process before he decides when to make a site
recommendation to the President. We are also making recommendations to DOE
to better manage the nuclear waste program and to prepare estimates of the
schedule and costs for opening a repository at Yucca Mountain that are tied
to a new baseline for the program.

DOE disagreed that it may be premature for the Secretary of Energy to make a
site recommendation to the President on the grounds that we did not
understand the statutory and regulatory requirements for a site
recommendation. (See app. II.) We agree that the Secretary has the
discretion to make such a recommendation at this time; however, we question
the prudence and practicality of making such a recommendation at this time,
given the express statutory time frames for a license application and the
significant amount of work remaining to be done for NRC to accept a license
application from DOE. Our conclusion is based on the relationship between a
site recommendation and DOE?s readiness to submit an acceptable license
application to NRC, as set out in law and

Page 5 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

DOE?s siting guidelines. Although we have clarified our discussion of the
statutory and regulatory requirements for site recommendation, approval, and
licensing, we continue to believe that the Secretary of Energy should
consider the timing of this statutory process as he decides when to make a
site recommendation to the President. Therefore, while we have modified the
language, we have not changed the intent of our recommendation on this
matter. (See p. 24 for our evaluation of DOE?s comments.)

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. In the act, the Congress stated that
federal efforts to devise a permanent solution for disposing of radioactive
waste had been inadequate. The act charged DOE with (1) establishing
criteria for the recommendation of sites for repositories; (2)
?characterizing? (investigating) three sites to determine each site?s
suitability for a repository; (3) recommending one suitable site to the
President who, if he considers the site is qualified for a license
application, submits a recommendation of such site to the Congress; and (4)
upon approval of a recommended site, seeking a license from NRC to construct
and operate a repository at the approved site. The act created the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management within DOE to manage its nuclear waste
program. When the act was passed, it was expected that a repository could be
operational in 1998. Amendments to the act in 1987 directed DOE to
investigate only the Yucca Mountain site. These amendments also established
the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (the Board). The Board?s mission is
to review the technical and scientific validity of DOE?s activities
associated with investigating the site and packaging and transporting
wastes, and to report its findings and recommendations to the Congress and
DOE at least twice each year. The act does not require DOE to implement the
Board?s recommendations.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act also set out important and complementary roles
for other federal agencies. It required EPA to establish health and safety
standards for the disposal of these wastes in repositories. EPA issued the
standards for the Yucca Mountain site in June 2001. 3 The act

3 The Energy Policy Act of 1992 required EPA to establish specific health
and safety standards for a repository at Yucca Mountain. Background

Page 6 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

also made NRC responsible for licensing and regulating repositories to
ensure their compliance with EPA?s standard. If the Yucca Mountain site is
recommended to the President and approved, upon accepting a license
application from DOE, NRC has, according to the act, 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. The act also required that, before the
Secretary of Energy may recommend the site to the President, he or she must
obtain NRC?s preliminary comments on the sufficiency of DOE?s site
investigation for the purpose of a license application. NRC provided these
comments in writing on November 13, 2001. From the beginning of the formal
investigation of Yucca Mountain, therefore, NRC has been reviewing DOE?s
investigation activities, concentrating on the scientific and technical
issues that need to be understood and clarified so that DOE will have
adequate information for a license application. Finally, the Board?s
principal charge is to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of
DOE?s investigation of Yucca Mountain to ensure that the investigation is
technically sound and scientifically credible. The Board must report to the
Congress and the Secretary of Energy at least twice a year on issues
surrounding the site investigation. Each of the Board?s 11 members is
appointed by the President from a list of candidates recommended by the
National Academy of Sciences. Board members serve part- time and are
assisted by a permanent staff.

In addition to the investigation of Yucca Mountain, the nuclear waste
program includes preparations for eventually accepting and transporting
spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes from storage sites. Upon
receipt of wastes at the site, DOE would put the wastes in metal containers
and put the loaded containers in the repository. Both the natural features
of the site and the design and materials of the waste containers and other
engineered components of the repository system would contribute to
restricting the release of radioactive materials from the repository over
the 10,000- year period required by EPA?s health and safety standards.

If DOE determines that the site is suitable for the development of a
repository, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Secretary may
then recommend the site to the President at least 30 days after notifying
the state of Nevada of the impending recommendation. However, before the
Secretary may recommend the site to the President, the act requires that he
hold local public hearings to inform the residents of the area and receive
their comments on a possible site recommendation. DOE held the public
hearings from May 2001 to December 2001. In addition, according to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Secretary must prepare a

Page 7 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

comprehensive statement of the basis for the site?s recommendation that
includes, among other things, the following:

 NRC?s preliminary comments on the sufficiency of the site investigation
for a license application.  Descriptions of the proposed repository and
waste form or packaging and

a discussion of the information obtained from the site investigation.  An
environmental impact statement prepared for the site along with the

comments on the statement by the Department of the Interior, the Council for
Environmental Quality, the EPA, and NRC.  The views and comments of
Nevada?s governor and legislature and the

Secretary?s response to them. If, after receiving a site recommendation from
the Secretary of Energy, the President considers the Yucca Mountain site
qualified for an application for construction authorization (a license) for
a repository, then the President shall submit a recommendation of the site
to the Congress. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not specify a time frame
in which the President must act. However, the President?s recommendation, if
made, is automatically approved after 60 days unless Nevada?s governor and
legislature notify the Congress of their disapproval of the site. In that
event, the site would not be approved unless the Congress enacted, within 90
days of continuous session, legislation overriding the state?s disapproval.
If the site is recommended and approved, the act requires the Secretary to
submit a license application to NRC not later than 90 days after the
effective date of the site?s approval. NRC is required to issue or deny a
license not later than 3 years after receiving a license application, unless
it extends this period by not more than 1 year by reporting its reasons for
doing so to the Secretary and the Congress.

Although within his discretion, it may be premature for the Secretary of
Energy to make a site recommendation in the near future because DOE is
currently not prepared to submit an acceptable license application to NRC
within the statutory limits that would take effect if the President
recommended the site to the Congress within the next several years. DOE has
entered into almost 300 agreements with NRC to gather and/ or analyze
additional technical information in preparation for a license application.
DOE is also continuing to address technical issues raised by the Board. In
September 2001, Bechtel completed a detailed reassessment of the plan for
completing the necessary technical work for DOE and proposed January 2006 as
the date when DOE would be ready to submit an acceptable license application
to NRC. DOE has not accepted this estimate It May Be Premature

for DOE to Make a Site Recommendation

Page 8 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

because, according to program officials, it would extend the license
application date too far into the future. Instead, DOE is considering
accepting only the planned work for fiscal year 2002 and asking the
contractor to replan the work remaining to be completed after that fiscal
year until the submission of a license application to NRC. Under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act and DOE?s guidelines, while a site recommendation and a
license application are separate processes, DOE will need to use essentially
the same data for both. 4 Also, the act states that the recommendation that
the President would make 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. As a
result, we believe that DOE should consider these factors in deciding when
to make a site recommendation to the President. On the basis of the
information we reviewed, DOE will not be able to submit an acceptable
application to NRC within the express statutory time frames for several
years because it will take that long to resolve many technical issues.

Over the last 2 years, staff of DOE and NRC negotiated 293 agreements
covering specific pieces of additional technical work that DOE agreed to
perform as a part of preparing a license application that NRC would accept.
Such agreements address areas of study within the program where NRC?s staff
determined that DOE needs to collect more scientific data and/ or improve
its technical assessment of the data. According to NRC?s tracking system for
the 293 agreements, as of November 30, 2001, NRC had received and is
reviewing the information related to 47 of these agreements and DOE had
completed work on another 15 of the agreements to NRC?s satisfaction. Many
of the technical issues that were the subject of the 293 agreements between
DOE and NRC have also been of concern to the Board since it began reporting
on the Yucca Mountain project in 1990. According to officials from NRC?s
waste management division, these issues 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

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). DOE Lacks Information for

a License Application

Page 9 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

information for the mathematical models used to evaluate the performance of
the planned repository at the site.

The uncertainties related to engineered barriers revolve largely around the
longevity of the waste containers that would be used to isolate the wastes.
DOE currently expects that these containers would be constructed with a
nickel- chromium alloy that 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. As part of its agreements
with NRC, DOE will continue its research on the expected rate of corrosion
of the container material and the anticipated effects of corrosion on the
performance of the repository system. In addition, DOE formed a peer review
panel to address uncertainties about how materials for waste containers
would be expected to perform over time in the repository. 5 A September 2001
interim report by the panel found no evidence thus far to rule out the use
of the proposed container materials but noted that significant work is
needed to substantiate the technical basis for predicting the stability of
these materials. The report also stated that the uncertainty about the
containers? long- term performance probably could be reduced substantially
through further experiments and analysis.

The uncertainties related to the physical characteristics of the site
involve a wide variety of issues. According to DOE officials, while some of
these issues have been and are continuing to be studied by DOE, remaining
uncertainties include

 the faulting and fracturing of the repository rock over time;  the flow
of water through the heated portion of the repository;  the flow of water
through the saturated and unsaturated zones of the

repository under natural (prerepository) conditions; 6  the stability of
the repository under natural conditions, heated conditions,

and conditions involving seismic events; 5 The peer review comprised
recognized experts from industry and academia. 6 The saturated zone is that
area beneath the repository that is saturated with groundwater. The
unsaturated zone is above the water table.

Page 10 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

 the movement of radioactive material through the repository in the event
of a release of this material;  the effect of volcanic activity on the
repository; and  the combined effects of heat, water, and chemical
processes in and around

the tunnels where the waste containers would be placed. According to
officials in DOE?s repository project office, the amount of current
scientific uncertainty within each of these areas varies. For example, the
flow of water under natural conditions through the area where the repository
would be located is relatively well understood. In contrast, there is much
more current uncertainty about 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 over the supporting information for the
mathematical models that DOE would use as its primary tool for assessing the
performance of the repository revolved primarily around validating the
models 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 system, comprising both natural and
engineered features, would perform at the Yucca Mountain site. Some of DOE?s
mathematical models describe the behavior of individual physical and
chemical processes, such as how quickly water might travel from the surface
to the repository. DOE then links the results of these individual models
together into a computer model representing the performance of the overall
repository system. DOE then uses this model, called a ?performance
assessment model,? to estimate the release of radioactivity from a
repository under a range of conditions and over thousands of years. The
model also enables DOE to forecast the dose of radiation to hypothetical
persons living in the vicinity of the repository and compare them with EPA?s
health and safety standards. DOE?s agreements with NRC are centered on
validating the models- presenting information to provide confidence that the
models are valid for their intended use- and verifying the information that
has been collected during the site investigation and used in these models.

In addition to the NRC staff?s concerns about DOE?s models, NRC?s Advisory
Committee on Nuclear Waste has raised concerns about the

Page 11 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

adequacy of the performance assessment model that DOE used to support the
information discussed in the technical documents it has issued to support a
site recommendation. 7 In a September 18, 2001, letter to the chairman of
NRC, the committee concluded that the model did not provide a basis for
estimating performance and did not inspire confidence in the modeling
process. The committee?s conclusions were based on its concern that the
modeling

 is guided by an inconsistent set of assumptions, including a mixture of
conservative and nonconservative bounding assumptions, that do not represent
realistic conditions and  relies on many assumption- based computations and
analyses that do not

support or link the assumptions with available evidence. According to the
director of DOE?s repository project office, the additional work surrounding
the 293 agreements with NRC?s staff is an insignificant addition to the
extensive amount of technical work already completed. Moreover, this
official does not expect that completing the additional technical work will
change DOE?s current performance assessment of a repository at Yucca
Mountain. Also, in commenting on a draft of our report, DOE stated that it
has compiled an enormous body of scientific and technical work over the last
2 decades including some 600 papers cited in one of the recently published
reports. The Department also cited a substantial body of analytic literature
it has published in recent years. 8

From NRC?s perspective, however, the agreements provided the basis for it to
give DOE, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 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

?[ a] lthough significant additional work is needed prior to the submission
of a possible license application, we believe that agreements reached
between DOE and NRC staff

7 The committee, established by NRC to advise it on nuclear waste regulatory
issues, comprises experts in several disciplines, including risk assessment.
8 DOE mentioned its Viability Assessment (1998), Preliminary Site
Suitability Evaluation (2001), Supplemental Science and Performance Analyses
(2001), Draft Environmental Impact Statement (1999), and Supplement to the
draft EIS (2001).

Page 12 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

regarding the collection of additional information provide the basis for
concluding that development of an acceptable license application is
achievable.?

The NRC Chairman?s letter also pointed out that NRC?s Advisory Committee on
Nuclear Waste noted, similar to the NRC staff, that substantial additional
work by DOE is needed prior to its submission of a license application.

Since its first report to the Congress and Secretary of Energy in 1990, the
Board has 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 correspondence to DOE?s director of the nuclear
waste program and in its reports to the Congress and the Secretary of
Energy. For example, in an August 2000 letter to the Subcommittee on Energy
and Power, House Committee on Commerce, the Board reported that the
technical basis for DOE?s longterm projections of repository performance had
?critical weaknesses.? The Board explained that some of the large
uncertainties about the proposed repository?s performance over thousands of
years- including the estimated corrosion rates of waste containers and
predicted behavior of the geologic system- were greater at the higher
temperatures that would result from DOE?s design of the repository. At a
January 2001 public meeting with DOE, the Board told DOE that to determine
whether the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for use as a repository, DOE
must focus its attention on four priority issues: (1) quantifying the
uncertainties in the models used to estimate the repository?s performance;
(2) gaining a further understanding of the processes related to the
corrosion of waste containers; (3) evaluating and comparing a repository
design having a higher temperature with a design that has a lower
temperature; and (4) developing evidence other than performance assessment
modeling to support the estimates of repository performance.

In October 2001, the Board reported that, despite DOE?s progress in
responding to the Board?s concerns, gaps in data and analyses make
evaluation of DOE?s technical bases on whether to recommend the site more
difficult. The Board provided several examples of these gaps. First, the
Board noted that DOE has not yet completed a comparison, promised in a May
30, 2001, letter to the Board, between a high- temperature and a low-
temperature repository design. The Board explained that a design with a
lower temperature has the potential to reduce the level of

Page 13 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

uncertainty in DOE?s modeling results. Second, DOE does not appear to have
implemented the Board?s suggestion, made in two previous letters to DOE, to
examine more closely the contribution that each piece of natural and
engineered barriers makes to the repository?s overall performance. Third,
the Board observed that DOE had not presented a clear and persuasive
rationale for going forward with a site recommendation before resolving the
important issue of the potential consequences to the repository from
volcanic activity. Last, the Board asked that, if the analyses referred to
in the letter would not be available before DOE?s decision on whether to
recommend the site to the President, DOE provide its rationale explaining
why the analyses are not important for site recommendation as well as any
plans for subsequently conducting the work if the site were recommended and
approved for repository development.

Recent reports to DOE by the U. S. Geological Survey and an international
peer review team provide further insights into DOE?s site investigation. An
October 2001 letter from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS), which has long
played an active role in the site investigation, stated that the scientific
work performed to date supports a decision to recommend the site for
development as a repository. However, USGS qualified its position by noting
that it was commenting only within the scope of its earth science expertise
and was neutral regarding other information the Secretary might consider.
USGS also pointed out that additional studies need to be performed even
after a site recommendation.

In November 2001 an international peer review panel released an executive
summary of the results of its review of DOE?s performance assessment
modeling for a potential site recommendation. The panel, which performed the
review at DOE?s request, was organized by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International
Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations. The panel did not comment on the
results of DOE?s modeling efforts but found that DOE?s methodology is
soundly based and implemented in a competent manner. Overall, the panel
stated, DOE?s approach provides an adequate basis for supporting a statement
on likely compliance within the regulatory period of 10,000 years and for a
site recommendation decision. The panel also qualified its findings,
however, by stating that the findings were based on a brief review and not
an in- depth analysis. The panel also called for a number of improvements in
DOE?s approach to performance assessment, including demonstrating an
understanding of the behavior of the overall repository system rather than

Page 14 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

focusing on the numerical results of the assessment, and identifying and
treating all types of uncertainty in the modeling.

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 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. 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 is now considering
accepting only the fiscal year 2002 portion of Bechtel?s detailed work plan
and requesting Bechtel to prepare another work plan for fiscal year 2003
through submission of a license application.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and DOE?s site suitability guidelines,
while the site recommendation and a license application are separate
processes, DOE will need to use essentially the same data for both. Further,
site recommendation and license application are connected by law with
specific timeframes that require DOE to submit a license application to NRC
within about 5 to 8 months once the President considers the site qualified
for a license application and makes a site recommendation to the Congress.

Under the 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
Essentially the Same

Information Is Needed for a Site Recommendation and a License Application

Page 15 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

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, once the President makes a recommendation to the Congress that it
approve the site, specific statutory time frames are 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. For illustrative purposes, figure 1 assumes that the
Secretary recommends the site to the President on January 30, 2002 and the
President recommends the site to the Congress 6 months later on July 30,
2002. The figure also assumes that Nevada disapproves the site but that the
Congress overrides the state?s disapproval. As shown in the figure, Nevada
has 60 days 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. On the basis of Bechtel?s latest program
reassessment, DOE would be in a position to submit a license application to
NRC in January 2006.

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. DOE, however, will not be ready to file
an acceptable application with NRC for several years. 9 (See fig. 1.)
Therefore, the Secretary of Energy should consider the timing of this
statutory process as he decides when to make a site recommendation to the
President.

9 In the congressional conference report on fiscal year 2002 appropriations
for energy and water development, the conferees stated that they expect DOE
to deliver the final site recommendation report and environmental impact
statement to the Congress by Feb. 28, 2002. They recognized that certain
scientific and engineering work is directly related to the site?s
recommendation and to resolving technical concerns of NRC and the Board, and
that ?such work should not automatically terminate upon submission of the
site recommendation.? H. R. Rep. No. 107- 258, at 122 (2001).

Page 16 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Figure 1: Comparison of Statutory Site Approval Process With DOE?s Projected
Schedule

a No prescribed statutory time frame. b 90 calendar days of continuous
session of the Congress.

DOE, in a document that would support a potential site recommendation,
states that it may be able to open a repository at Yucca Mountain in 2010.
This expectation is predicated on the submission of a license application to
NRC in 2003, receipt of the construction authorization in 2006, and
construction of enough surface and underground facilities to begin putting
wastes into the repository in 2010. However, according to Bechtel?s
September 2001 detailed reassessment of the nuclear waste program, in which
it proposed to reestablish a baseline for the program, a more realistic date
for submitting the license application may be January 2006. Reestablishing
the program?s baseline is necessary because DOE stopped using the baseline
to manage the program in March 1997. Since then, program officials have used
revised estimates for the license application date in various internal and
external reports, but none of these changes were approved as required and
the program?s cost and schedule baseline has never been revised to reflect
these changes. As a result, DOE does not have a baseline estimate of the
program?s schedule and cost that is based on all the work that it expects to
complete through the submission of 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. DOE Is Unlikely to

Open a Repository in 2010 as Planned

Page 17 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

In its most recent report on the program?s estimated cost, DOE states that
it expects to submit the application to NRC in 2003. 10 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, but
none of the three proposals have been approved as required.

DOE designates some of its programs and projects, such as the nuclear waste
program, to receive special attention from senior DOE managers because of
the complexity or estimated costs of the programs and projects. DOE?s
guidance for managing these designated 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.

10 See Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management Program (DOE/ RW- 0533, May 2001). DOE?s
Current License

Application Milestone Date Is Not Supported by the Program?s Baseline

Page 18 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

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. According to the specific management procedures that DOE adopted
for the nuclear waste program, 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.

Less than a year later, in September 2000, the site investigation office
once again proposed an extension to the license application milestone to
July 2003 because of reduced funding and added technical work. Then, in
February 2001, the site investigation office proposed another extension in
the milestone, to December 2003. As with the November 1999 extension
request, neither the Director of the nuclear waste program nor the Secretary
of Energy approved either of the latter two requests, nor was either
extension date for the license application milestone incorporated into the
baseline for the program. Furthermore, as with the November 1999 proposed
change, DOE began to use the unapproved milestone dates in both internal and
external reports and communications. For example, the Director used the
unapproved 2003 date for submitting a license application twice in
congressional testimony in May 2001. Later, in a September 2001 memorandum
to the DOE Under Secretary discussing the goals of the nuclear waste program
through January 2005, the Director established 2004 as his goal for
submitting a license application.

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

Page 19 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

complete through submission of a license application and the estimated
schedule and cost to complete this work. 11

When Bechtel was contracted to manage the nuclear waste program, one of its
first assignments was to document the remaining technical work that had to
be completed to support the submission of a license application 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. DOE also 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. 12 As noted above, DOE has not accepted Bechtel?s
proposed new baseline extending out until January 2006. Instead, DOE is
considering accepting, at present, only that portion of the baseline that
Bechtel proposed to complete in fiscal year 2002.

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.

11 In 1998 and 2000, independent cost and schedule reviews of the program
were performed by DOE contractors. On the latter review, the contractor
concluded that DOE?s schedule for licensing, constructing, and opening the
repository by 2010 was optimistic by about 2 years and that DOE?s estimate
of the total cost of the program over its 100- plus- year lifetime-$ 58
billion (2000 dollars)- was understated by about $3 billion.

12 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. Extension of
License

Application Date Will Likely Postpone 2010 Repository Goal

Page 20 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Furthermore, opening the repository in 2013 may be questionable for several
reasons. First, a repository at Yucca Mountain would be a first- ofa- 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 time period for
construction that DOE?s current schedule allows from the issuance of a
construction authorization to the opening of the repository 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. 13 Bechtel
anticipates a 5- year period of construction between the receipt of a
construction authorization from NRC to the opening of the repository. Thus,
on the bases of a 4- year licensing period and a 5- year period for initial
construction, the repository might not be ready to open until about 2015 if
DOE does not apply for a license until January 2006.

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 to $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. 14

13 See Independent Cost Estimate Review of the Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management Program, 2001 Total System Life Cycle Cost (Jan. 2001). 14 See
Alternative Means of Financing and Managing the Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management Program (DOE/ RW- 0546, Aug. 2001).

Page 21 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

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. In May 2001, DOE released a report on potential
options for constructing and operating the repository. 15 It is also
sponsoring a National Research Council study on possible approaches to
developing a repository in stages over a longer duration.

DOE?s May report evaluates a range of approaches to developing and operating
the repository system and strategies for implementing these approaches. For
example, to reduce the uncertainties of receiving substantially higher
appropriations needed to open the repository as planned, 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 study recommended developing the repository
on a modular basis, separating the rate of accepting wastes at the
repository site from the rate of waste emplacement in the underground
disposal areas by relying on the surface storage of received wastes until
the capacity to move wastes into the repository has been increased. For
example, relatively modest- sized surface facilities to handle wastes could
be expanded later to handle larger volumes of waste. Such a modular
approach, according to the study results, 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 documents, such as the Science
and Engineering Report that the Secretary would use to support a site
recommendation.

In addition, DOE has 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

 technical, policy, and societal objectives and risks for developing a
staged repository;

15 See CRWMS Modular Design/ Construction and Operation Options Report

(DOE/ OCRWM, TDR- CRW- MD- 000002, Rev. 03, May 2001). DOE Is Reviewing

Alternative Ways to Accept Wastes in 2010

Page 22 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

 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  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 about March 2002 and
December 2002, respectively.

In part, DOE?s desire to meet the 2010 goal is linked to the court decisions
that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as implemented by DOE?s contracts with
owners of commercial spent fuel, obligated DOE 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 $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.

In addition to studying the Yucca Mountain site, DOE is taking the other
steps, such as public hearings and obtaining NRC?s sufficiency comments,
that are required for the Secretary to make a site recommendation in the
near future. Making a site recommendation at this time, however, may be
premature. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and DOE?s siting guidelines, a
site recommendation and a license application will need to be based on
essentially the same data. Furthermore, the act lays out a process with
specific time frames that requires DOE to submit a license application to
NRC within about 5 to 8 months after the President makes a site
recommendation to the Congress. DOE?s contractor estimates that it will not
have all of the additional information that NRC has said will be needed for
an acceptable license application for another 4 years. Waiting until DOE is
closer to submitting a license application for the additional information
would put DOE in a position to be able to submit a license application that
is acceptable to NRC within the time frames set out in the law, and to be
able to better respond to questions and challenges that may emanate from the
statutory review process subsequent to the President?s recommendation.
Conclusions

Page 23 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Another benefit of waiting for the additional technical information is that
the repository?s design and development schedule described in the documents
that support a site recommendation may not describe the facilities that DOE
would actually develop. These documents generally describe surface and
underground facilities that DOE would design and build on a schedule
permitting it to open the repository in 2010. This schedule, however, is
unrealistic if one assumes that DOE?s existing prelicensing and construction
time frames continue to be valid. This uncertainty is compounded by
questions about whether DOE can obtain the increases in annual funding
required to meet its schedule. On the other hand, a compelling incentive
exists to open the repository in 2010 because DOE is liable for damages, in
amounts not yet determined by the courts, for not beginning to accept
utilities? spent fuel by 1998. The damage amounts will in part be based on
when DOE can begin to accept and deliver spent fuel to the repository. For
these reasons, DOE is exploring alternative approaches to developing a
repository, such as initially storing spent fuel at the repository site
before constructing underground disposal facilities that could still enable
it to accept spent fuel by 2010. Thus, deferring a site recommendation until
DOE has substantially completed the remaining technical work needed for an
acceptable license application would also enable DOE to complete its
consideration of alternative approaches to developing a repository at Yucca
Mountain. DOE could then ensure that the site recommendation is based on the
approach that the Department intends to follow. This would enable DOE to
develop the estimated schedule to design and build the preferred approach
and estimate its cost, including the annual funding requirements, as part of
the information on which to make a site recommendation.

DOE needs to reestablish a baseline for the nuclear waste program that
accounts for all of the outstanding technical work needed to prepare an
acceptable license application and the estimated schedule and cost to
achieve this milestone. In conjunction with reestablishing a baseline for
the program, DOE needs to resume using the baseline as a tool for managing
the program, in accordance with the Department?s policies and procedures for
managing major projects.

To ensure that DOE will be prepared to submit an acceptable license
application within the timeframes set out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
the Secretary of Energy should consider (1) deferring a site recommendation
until it can meet the express statutory time frames that are triggered by a
site recommendation by the President to the Congress and (2) including the
results of DOE?s ongoing technical work for NRC and Recommendations for

Executive Action

Page 24 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

the results of analyses of alternative approaches to the proposed repository
in the Secretary?s comprehensive statement of the basis for a site
recommendation.

To improve the management of the nuclear waste program and to provide the
Congress and the public with accurate information on the repository program,
we further recommend that the Secretary of Energy

 reestablish the baseline for the nuclear waste program through the
submission of a license application, including incorporating the remaining
technical work required to submit the application and the estimated cost and
schedule to complete this work, and  follow the Department?s requirements
for managing major programs and

projects, including a formal change control procedure. We provided DOE with
a draft of this report for review and comment. DOE disagreed with our
report, contending that we did not understand the relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements related to a site recommendation. Bechtel, DOE?s
management contractor, also provided us with a letter asserting unspecified
factual and legal inaccuracies in our draft report; however, the company
added that it would provide specific comments through DOE. While it was not
clear from DOE?s comments which ones had come from Bechtel, we are
responding to all comments received on the following pages. According to
DOE, our misunderstanding of the requirements resulted in a contention in
the draft report that it is premature for DOE to make a site recommendation
because all the technical work for license application is not complete.
(DOE?s comments are in app. II.) We agree that the Secretary has the
discretion to make such a recommendation at this time; however, we question
the prudence and practicality of making such a recommendation at this time,
given the express statutory time frames for license application and the
significant amount of work remaining to be done for NRC to accept a license
application from DOE. Our conclusion is based on the relationship between a
site recommendation and DOE?s readiness to submit an acceptable license
application to NRC, as set out in DOE?s siting guidelines and the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. The preamble to DOE?s siting guidelines states that DOE
expects to use essentially the same data for a site recommendation and a
license application. Also, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states that a
presidential site recommendation is to be made if the President considers
the site qualified for a license application and sets out a time frame that
could be as short as 5 to 8 months from a presidential site recommendation
to a license application. This includes Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

Page 25 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

the requirement that the Secretary of Energy submit a license application
not later than 90 days following congressional approval of the site. Thus,
the statutory time frame is decidedly shorter than the 4- year estimate
between site recommendation and license application that was recently
proposed by DOE?s management contractor.

DOE also pointed out the difference between the decision at hand-
determining whether a potential site is licensable- and the licensing by NRC
of a repository facility at the site. The latter decision would come at the
end of a 3- to 4- year licensing proceeding. In contrast, our report
addresses the relationship between a site recommendation and the submission
of the license application.

DOE said that our draft report incorrectly states that DOE?s siting
guidelines require the Secretary, in making a site recommendation, to
determine if the site currently complies with NRC?s licensing requirements
rather than determining if the site is ?likely? to meet NRC? s radiation
protection standards. We agree that the standard in DOE?s guidelines is
?likely? and have added this language to the report. The report accurately
states the relationship between a site recommendation and a license
application under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the siting guidelines.

In addition, DOE stated that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act charges the
Secretary with establishing criteria for determining the suitability of a
site for a repository and that the Department?s standards (siting
guidelines) are the most important legally relevant guidance on the question
of whether the Department is ready to make a site recommendation. Our
report, DOE said, ignores these standards and instead asserts a standard of
our own devising. Contrary to DOE's assertion, we did not evaluate DOE's
performance against a standard we devised. We used the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act and DOE?s standards- that the site is likely to meet NRC's radiation
protection standards- for a site suitability recommendation. Moreover, a
presidential site recommendation triggers statutory time frames that require
DOE to submit a license application to NRC within about 5 to 8 months. Thus,
our conclusion regarding whether DOE should make a site recommendation
relies on both the relationship between the standards for site
recommendation and license application and the statutory time frames. While
recommending to the President that the Yucca Mountain site is suitable for a
repository is within the discretion of the Secretary of Energy, such a
recommendation may be premature because of the large number of technical
issues remaining to be resolved before an acceptable license application can
be filed with NRC.

Page 26 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

DOE also stated that NRC?s licensing process is an iterative and continuous
process; even the license application is not expected to be ?set in
concrete.? We agree with DOE?s statement. The important point, however, is
that DOE and NRC have made 293 specific agreements on technical work that
DOE will need to complete and incorporate into a license application that
would be acceptable to NRC. This also assumes that no new issues surface
that would need to be addressed.

DOE said that our draft report emphasized the inventory of issues between
DOE and NRC but completely ignored the technical work that has been done
over the past 2 decades and the technical groups who have said that DOE?s
data are sufficient for a site recommendation. We have added information to
the report recognizing the body of work that DOE has completed to date and
the views of other technical parties mentioned by DOE. As discussed above,
however, the central issue is not whether technical parties are of the
opinion that DOE has enough information for a site recommendation but the
relationship, in statute and regulation, between the site recommendation and
the submission of an acceptable license application.

DOE also said our report gives short shrift to NRC?s recent ?sufficiency
letter? that, according to DOE, memorializes NRC?s conclusion that the data
and analyses existing and under way likely will be sufficient for a license
application. Instead, DOE added, our report over- relies on the views of an
NRC advisory committee. Our characterization of NRC?s sufficiency comments
is accurate. NRC did state that the agreements between DOE?s and NRC?s
staffs regarding the collection of additional information provide the basis
for concluding that the development of an acceptable license application is
achievable; however, NRC conditioned this comment on DOE?s successful
completion of ?significant? additional work prior to a license application.
Also, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not refer to work ?underway,? but
uses the phrase ?seem to be sufficient.? Finally, we included the views of
NRC?s advisory committee because NRC?s letter included these views.

In addition, DOE stated that our report prominently emphasizes the views of
the Board as requiring the Department to accommodate them before a site
determination is made. DOE added that the report does not emphasize that the
substance of the Board?s criticisms is directed to licensing- not site
recommendation. Contrary to DOE?s assertion, we did not assert that DOE is
?required? to accommodate the Board. We discussed the Board?s continuing
concerns as outlined in its October 2001 letter to DOE. In that letter, the
Board noted that gaps in data and

Page 27 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

analyses make the evaluation of DOE?s technical bases on whether to
recommend the site- not apply for a license- more difficult. Also, we gave
the Board?s current concerns about DOE?s site characterization work, as
summarized in its October letter, prominent mention in our report because of
the Board?s statutory mission to independently evaluate the technical and
scientific validity of DOE?s investigation of Yucca Mountain.

Finally, DOE said that our statement that delaying a site recommendation
decision will have no effect on the timing of the ultimate opening of a
repository is contrary to all common sense and experience. We have removed
that statement from the report. However, we note that the key factors that
bear on opening a repository currently lie in the licensing arena. One such
factor is the 4 more years of licensing- related work that Bechtel, in its
September 2001 detailed reassessment that proposed a new cost and schedule
baseline, estimates would be needed to submit a license application that is
acceptable to NRC. In addition, other licensing- related conditions could
continue to affect the timetable for developing a repository. For example,
Bechtel characterized its reassessment leading to the submission of a
license application in January 2006 as a high- risk schedule that does not
include any contingency or reserve- in effect, an optimistic schedule. Also,
NRC, in its preliminary comments on the sufficiency of site
characterization, stated that if DOE adopts a low- temperature repository
operating approach, such as described in a recent technical document, then
additional information would be needed for a potential license application.

Although we have clarified our discussion of the statutory and regulatory
requirements for site recommendation, approval, and licensing, we continue
to believe that the Secretary of Energy should consider the timing of this
statutory process as he decides when to make a site recommendation to the
President. Therefore, while we have modified the language, we have not
changed the intent of our recommendation on this matter. DOE did not comment
on our findings, conclusions, and recommendations about (1) potential delays
on, and alternatives to, its proposed repository design and (2) its
management of the nuclear waste program.

We performed our review at DOE?s headquarters in Washington, D. C., and its
project office in Las Vegas, Nevada. We also met with officials of NRC in
Rockville, Maryland; the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board in Clarendon,
Virginia; and the state of Nevada?s Agency for Nuclear Projects in Carson
City, Nevada. We conducted our review from April through Scope and

Methodology

Page 28 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (See app. I for details of our scope and methodology.)

We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy; the Director,
Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make
copies available upon request. If you or you staff have any questions about
this report, please call me at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix III.

(Ms.) Gary L. Jones Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 29 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Our objectives for this report were to determine whether (1) the Department
of Energy (DOE) has completed the work necessary to support a site
recommendation for the development of a repository at Yucca Mountain, and
(2) DOE?s goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain in 2010 is
reasonable.

To determine whether DOE, through its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management (OCRWM), has completed the work necessary to support a site
recommendation, we discussed with DOE officials the nature and extent of
such work and their relationship to the two processes. We also discussed
technical issues still outstanding with staff of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, the Board?s Chairman, and the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission?s (NRC) Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. We
analyzed the Board?s annual reports and other correspondence to DOE, and
summarized issues of concern affecting a site recommendation raised by the
Board to DOE. We also reviewed documents obtained from NRC to identify key
technical issues affecting readiness to submit an acceptable license
application. We visited DOE?s Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office in
Las Vegas, Nevada, and interviewed officials in that office on the
Department?s response to the issues raised by the Board and NRC. We also
reviewed project management documents at OCRWM?s headquarters and at the
project office to identify and characterize how OCRWM?s response to the
issues raised had been incorporated into the project?s work plans and
guidance to the office?s management contractor for the nuclear waste
program. We interviewed officials of Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC, DOE?s
management contractor, and obtained and analyzed documents prepared by the
contractor- such as its September 2001 detailed reassessment of the nuclear
waste program- to determine how ongoing and future project work would
address these issues, and the subsequent effects on the project schedule and
milestones.

To determine whether DOE?s goal of opening a repository at Yucca Mountain in
2010 was reasonable, we analyzed OCRWM?s reports and project documents. We
interviewed officials in OCRWM?s headquarters and the project office to
determine how total project and program costs had been captured, estimated,
and reported to the Congress and the public. We summarized the estimated
program costs and associated reasons for the milestones and changes over
time. We also determined the procedures used by DOE to revise its cost and
schedule estimates for site recommendation and license application, and
assessed its use of those procedures. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 30 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Our work was conducted from April through December 2001, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 31 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Energy

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 32 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 33 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 34 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 35 GAO- 02- 191 Nuclear Waste

Dwayne E. Weigel (202) 512- 6876 In addition, Daniel J. Feehan, Robert E.
Sanchez, John C. Furutani, Jonathan S. McMurray, Lindy Coe, Doreen S.
Feldman, and Susan W. Irwin made key contributions to this report. Appendix
III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments GAO Contact Acknowledgments

(360068)

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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (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 www. gao. gov and
select "Subscribe to daily e- mail alert for newly released products" under
the GAO Reports heading.

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 P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 (automated
answering system).

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 GAO?s Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***