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

7.49
TABLE 7.6.4. Comparison of Levelized Waste-Management Unit Costs for the Program
Alternatiyes Using the Once-Through Cycle and a 0% Discount Rate,
mills/kWh a)
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 2.9 to 4.3 4.2 to 7.7 3.6
2 Present Capacity and
Normal Life 1.0 to 1.6 1.5 to 2.2 1.1
3 250 GWe System by
year 2000 and Normal Life 0.7 to 1.2 1.1 to 1.5 0.9
4 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Steady
State 0.8 to 1.0 1.1 to 1.3 NA(b)
5 500 GWe System by
Year 2040 0.7 to 0.9 1.1 to 1.2 NA
(a) To convert mills/kWh to $/kg HM multiply by 233.
(b) NA = not applicable.
TABLE 7.6.5. Comparison of Levelized Waste-Management Unit Costs for the Program
Alternatives Using the Reprocessing Cycle and a 0% Discount Rate,
mills/kWh
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 NA(a) NA NA
2 Present Capacity and
Normal Life NA NA NA
3 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Normal Life 1.0 to 1.6 1.0 to 1.6 NA
4 250 GWe System by
Year 2000 and Steady
State 1.1 to 1.4 1.2.to 1.4 NA
5 500 GWe System by
Year 2040 1.1 to 1.4 1.1 to 1.3 NA
(a) NA = not applicable.
A series of tables in Appendix A (Tables A.9.3a to A.9.4c) present total unit costs for
each of the four geologic media over the range of 0 to 10% discount rates. These tabula-
tions indicate generally small variations in total unit costs with the different repository
media. The largest differences show up in the reprocessing cycle with early reprocessing.
Another series of tables in Appendix A (Tables A.9.la to A.9.2c) show a breakdown of
the total unit costs between spent fuel storage and transport, spent fuel treatment, other
waste treatment storage and transport, disposal, and research and development. These tables
show that for the once-through cycle, the research and development and site qualification
cost is the dominant cost over the entire range of discount rates in the present inventory
case. For the higher nuclear growth cases (cases 3, 4 and 5), research and development
costs are less than 10% of the total costs at a 0% discount rate but account for one-third
to one-half the cost at a 10% discount rate. Disposal costs tend to become a smaller