Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

7.47
1980). (This schedule actually leads to a first repository in 1997, so some of the expendi-
tures occur a little earlier than would be the case for a year 2000 startup.) For the 1990
repository opening, costs for activities that could not be completed by that time are
deleted. Second and third repositories in 1995 and 2000 are assumed. For the 2010 repos-
itory opening, it has been assumed that the delay is caused in half by political, regulatory
or other reasons at no cost and in half by technical problems with siting, licensing or
other factors. Second and third repositories in 2015 and 2020 are assumed. For the 2020
and 2030 repository openings (dates within the alternative program envelope), it was assumed
that expenditures continue at the 1981 level ($190 million/yr) with the program restruc-
tured to give equal emphasis to two or three disposal technologies. At the year 2000 and
2010, respectively, a preferred technology is selected and the expenditure rate is reduced
by one-third. After the first repository opening (2020 and 2030, respectively), the expen-
diture rate is halved and continues for another 10 years when R&D is assumed to be
completed.
For Cases 1 and 2, where only one repository is required, the R&D and multiple site
qualification costs are reduced and phased out earlier. For the "no-action" alternative
cases only the costs of R&D expended through 1980 plus the spent fuel storage R&D costs
(Table A.9.5) are included, for a total of $614 million.
The total waste management costs in billions of dollars are compared for the program
alternatives when using the once-through cycle in Table 7.6.2 and in Table 7.6.3 when using
the reprocessing cycle. The range of costs takes into account the variation of costs with
disposal and reprocessing dates and the variation in costs with the four disposal media that
were considered and include the estimated R&D multiple site qualification costs. The costs
increase as one would expect with the higher nuclear growth assumptions. However, they are
disproportionally high for the very low growth assumptions because of the fixed costs for fa-
cilities and research and development costs. For the three cases where the no-action alter-
native was evaluated, the costs are similar to the low end to mid-range of the range for the
proposed program. With the once-through cycle, the cost ranges are significantly higher for
TABLE 7.6.2. Comparison of Total Waste Management Costs for the Program Alternatives
Using the Once-Through Cycle, $ Billions
Proposed Program Alternative Program
Nuclear Power Growth (Geologic Disposal (Disposal Starting No-Action
Case Assumption Starting 1990 - 2010) 2010 - 2030) Alternative
1 Present Inventory Only 5.1 to 7.6 7.4 to 14 6.4
2 Present Capacity
and Normal Life 11 to 18 16 to 24 12
3 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Normal
Life 39 to 68 60 to 82 49
4 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Steady
State 61 to 72 87 to 98 NA(a)
5 500 GWe System by Year 2040 78 to 93 116 to 131 NA
(a) NA = not applicable.