ML20044D219
| ML20044D219 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1993 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF POLICY PLANNING (OPP) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044D213 | List: |
| References | |
| OPP-93-02, OPP-93-2, NUDOCS 9305180350 | |
| Download: ML20044D219 (22) | |
Text
.y.
OFFICE OF POLICY PLAhWING COMPILATION OF COSTS FOR LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES OPP-93-02 April 30,1993 f
l dREGy fyc.h r
9'9 D'
A 14 A
O s
T 3c i ry O
E V
/
lA W
%x x.
g i
0
-)
l 4
Q
% + + + + + +*
I 9305180350 930510 9051 0
Comoitation of Costs for Low-level Waste Disposal Facilities ii EXECUTIVE SUABLMY Costs to all sectors having responsibility for regulation, administration, and facility development as a result of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Policy Act of 1980 and the Amendments Act of 1985 (the Acts) are compiled in this report.
Our goal was to provide a complete accounting of costs incurred to date and projected through disposal facility life cycle.
However, cost data retreivability and accounting variability between States made the figures reported herein subject to further analysis if higher precision is required.
Costs were obtained by submitting requests to 1E States and 4 Compacts, most of whom responded with at least partial information even though such information is sensitive, and by research of the publicly available literature.
We also met with representatives of the LLW Forum prior to completion of this report to hear their views on our methodology and the accuracy of the reported information.
Concerns by some Forum members were expressed about the usefulness of incomplete information (since some States did not respond or provide complete information and the schedule did not allow for qualification of all of the cost data that was provided), the potential for improper comparison of cost figures between States or with foreign countries, and possible misuse of the data presented.
Based on the composite of this information, we estimate that the total State, Compact, and developer expenditures to date in implementation of the Acts exceed $320 million.
This estimate is consistent with already published LLW disposal cost estimates.
If DOE and NRC costs to date in support of development and regulation are also included, the total cost is greater than $36.0 million.
It is clear that the life cycle costs will be substantially greater than the development costs.
This is confirmed by the foreign data for already operating LLW disposal facilities.
What is not clear from the information received is how costly the ongoing process of development, construction, and operation of LLW disposal facilities will be nor how many facilities will be put into operation to meet the requirements of the Acts.
This report also summarizes the costs and accomplishments in the LLW arena by several other countries, namely, Finland, France, Spain, and Sweden.
All have currently operating facilities to meet their national LLW needs and the range in size represented by these facilities is a factor of 100 in total disposal capacity.
France's most recently opened facility cost about $267 million with a capacity of 10 m ( 3 4 x10'f t').
Of that 6 3 total, $77 million represents regulatory and developmental costs I
~ _. -
h r
~i I
- Comolation of Costs for low-level Waste Disposal Facilities iii j
and $190 million construction cost.
The time between initial i
planning and operation was less than eight years.-
?
Finally, the U.S.
experience and benefits from volume reduction and the trends in curie content are summarized.
Although there have been substantial variations in both the volume of waste disposed and its curie content, the volume has i
been generally decreasing.
This is likely because of the
{
economic factors which encourage volume reduction by-decontamination and recycling, incineration, compaction, and j
administrative controls.
Of interest in the last few years is that, while utility LLW activity remains in excess of 80% the nation's total, as it generally has been, the utility volume was well under 40% in 1992 despite historic values in excess of 50%
prior to 1991.
This would indicate that the volume reduction programs by utility generators are effective.
Trends in general l
are hard to discern with the level of information available, but running averages (e.g., three year) would indicate that for the last six years, curie content is increasing.
Running averages would indicate an annual volume of about 1.5x10'ft3 and a curie content of about 0.8x10'Ci.
In our efforts to compile the desired cost information for LLW disposal facility development, we_ pursued several potential i
sources and were met with much interest in what information we could provide on the subject.
For example, Edison Electric Institute's EEI/U Waste group _has been planning to conduct a-similar study, but that has been put on hold until the results of f
this report can be assessed. 'The two U.S.
Senators from Connecticut asked the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to look l
at the overall costs of the National LLW disposal development program.
The GAO investigator indicated that he wanted to'see l
the results we obtain before deciding on how.to respond.. We have had other inquiries on the project from the Office of Technology j
Assessment (OTA) and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
i l
. I
i l
Comoitation of Costs for Low-level Waste Disposal Facirrties iv Contents i
1 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ii 1
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION.
APPROACH AND FINDINGS.
2 Total U.S. Costs for LLW Disposal 2
Foreign Costs for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 4
l Trends In Volumes and Curie Content of LLW for Disposal in the U.S.
6 TABLES 7
Table 1 - Costs of LLW Disposal Facilities for Host 8
States Table 2 - Costs of LLW Disposal Facilities for Other States 10 Table 3 - Costs of LLW Disposal Facilities for 11 Compacts Table 4 - Summary of State and Compact Costs to Date 13 Table 5 - NRC and DOE Resources Expended.
14 Table 6 - Summary of LLW Expenditures in U.S. to Date 15 i
Table 7 - Cost Summaries for Foreign LLW Facilities 16 Table 8 - Detailed Costs for Foreign LLW Facilities 17 Table 9 - LLW Disposal Summary by Year.
18 i
f 4
-s, e
i i
f f
I I
t t
t h
i i
l Comoitation of Costs for low-Level Waste Disoosal Facilities 1
INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION l
i l
In a February 2, 1993, meeting with representatives of the Offices of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), State j
Programs (OSP), and Policy Planning (OPP), Commissioner James
{
Curtiss requested that OPP take the lead in a staff effort to provide information on the incurred and projected costs associated with the development of LLW disposal facilities as a result of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA), and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA).
Specifically, the Commissioner requested 4
that OPP determin'e (1).how much the U.S. has spent and will l
spend on the development of LLW disposal capacity; (2) how much i
other countries, specifically Finland, France, Spain, and Sweden i
have spent to develop their LLW disposal facilities and; (3) if i
there are any trends in the volume and curie content of the LLW going to U.S. disposal sites from 1980 to the present.
To the j
extent possible, the Commissioner wanted cost information which was publicly available.
In our efforts to respond OPP, OSP, NMSS, and OIP used a broad spectrum approach to data collection including direct requests for information from the States, Compacts, and the four
{
foreign countries, in order to capture as much comprehensive and
{
accurate cost information for the U.S. and foreign LLW disposal programs as possible.
In spite of early concerns that the actual j
response to our request would be very limited because of its
(
l necessarily short turnaround time, 15 out of 18 States, 4 out of 9 Compacts, and 3 of.the 4 countries submitted some-level of cost information on their programs.
We have used the information supplied in this manner in conjunction with information from publicly available documents, the literature, DOE, industry groups, and a variety of other sources, to estimate the U.S. LLW
[
disposal costs, the specified foreign LLW disposal costs, and to develop U.S. disposal volume / curie information.
l This report summarizes both our approach in each of these l
areas and the data collected.
The enclosed notebook contains copies of the' data collected, any supporting or background information collected, and copies of most of the analyses performed by staff to derive the summary information.
It should be noted that we consider many of the numbers presented in this report to be " soft."
That is, while the cost data may have been the best the States and Compacts could provide or that we could retrieve from existing documents, there is sufficient variability between the States programs and their accounting and reporting arrangements that the desired information may.not have readily accommodated,to the cost j
+
Comoitation of Costs for low-level Waste Discosal Faci!ities 2
categories we selected.
In some cases, very little information was actually provided, leaving major data gaps.
Projections of future costs were particularly difficult to acquire.
- Also, although we requested the cost information be provided adjusted to a certain year's dollars, that information was not generally provided, so we made no attempt to make the costs uniform to a certain year.
In spite of these problems, our estimated total cost of the U.S. LLW disposal program is in general agreement with the totals currently offered in other published estimates of the costs of developing LLW disposal.
Although we were only able to provide three weeks for the States / Compacts to respond to our request, it is not clear that there would be a significant increase in the amount or accuracy of the information if additional time had been made available.
Variability in data collection and record retention appear to severely limit the existence and recoverability of the States and Compacts LLW disposal program costs.
APPROACH AND FINDINGS Total U.S. Costs for LLW Disposal (Note:
All background and referenge material supporting this discussion are contained in Tab 1 of the enclosed notebook.)
In order to determine the incurred and projected costs to the States and Compacts as a result of the LLRWPA and the LLRWPAA, OSP and OPP sent LLW disposal cost information surveys to all of the host and potential host Agreement States (including California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington), to key non-Agreement host States (Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, and Vermont), and four l
i Compacts (Central, Midwest, Northeast, and Southeast).
Although the survey request was limited to asking the Agreement States for the information germane to its functions, it also included information on the Compacts that the Agreement State could complete if it so desired.
In this way, information was also solicited for the Appalachian, Central Midwest, Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Southwestern Compacts.
Although it would have been l
ideal to survey all of the States and Compacts, OPP had been directed to keep the solicitation under OMB Clearance requirements, and the above approach accommodated that directive.
l In actuality, this designated group of States and Compacts included all of the key players in LLW disposal development and allowed us to potentially capture most of the desired costs.
(For more detailed discussion of the methodology used to survey
Comoitation of Costs for tow 4evel Weste Disposal Facilities 3
the States and Compacts, and more extensive reporting of their response, see the OSP transmittal package under Tab 1.)
The Department of Energy (DOE) was contacted for information p
on the State and Compact costs, and for the costs of its programs related to State's and Compact's development of LLW disposal facilities.
DOE indicated that it did not compile State and Compact costs.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and EEI/U Waste, both representing generators, and GAO and OTA, both involved in reviewing the costs associated with the development of LLW disposal facilities were also contacted as supplemental sources of cost information.
The NRC library scanned the DOE data base for related cost information, and OSP and NMSS searched their files for documents, articles or other sources of LLW disposal cost information.
This information was used to supplement or substantiate the data provided by the States and Compacts.
All of the States except Illinois, South Carolina, and Washington responded to our request.
The contacted Compacts responded with the exception of the Central and Midwest Compacts.
Tables 1, 2,
3, and 4 were developed from the LLW disposal cost information collected by OSP and OPP on the States and the Compacts. (Tab 1 of the enclosed Notebook contains the original cost materials provided by each of the responding States and Compacts, staff worksheets of the survey used to convert the States information, and copies of any documents used to supplement the information provided by the States).
These tables summarize the cost information believed to be the most pertinent to that part of this study:
- Table 1 lists the costs for the host states
- Table 2 lists those for Other States
- Table 3 presents those for the compacts
- Table 4 presents the total costs.to date 1
The principal sources of information for these tables are the States and Compacts, but the tables also contain supplemental information which is footnoted.
The best response rate from the States and Compacts was provided for the cost-to-date information which is set out in the first column of Tables 1, 2,
and 3, then summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that more than $320 million has been spent by the States Compacts and developers, a number which closely corresponds to the total estimated in the three LLW cost papers enclosed in the General Materials Section under Tab 1.
The States / Compacts did not provide much information on the projected costs for their facilities.
In general, there were not enough data points in the developmental costs, construction h
Comoitation of Costs for low-Level Weste Disposal Facilities 4
costs, or life cycle costs columns that totaling the cost numbers in those columns would offer any meaningful information.
However, some of the life cycle costs for individual States can be compared with conceptual design estimates provided by DOE in its 1987 annual report to Congress.
Also, the States reported costs that were actual yearly expenditures rather than correcting to a common year base.
If these costs were based on 1993 dollars, they would all be increased.
Another part of the total U.S.
costs resulting from the Acts is the money that has been spent by NRC and DOE to support the States / Compacts efforts.
In order to determine NRC's costs for this support, the Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning (LLWMD) within NMSS and OSP each prepared resource analyses (included in Tab 1) calculating office FTEs, travel, and program support costs back to the early 1980's.
These figures were converted to yearly dollar expenditures to determine the NRC incurred costs of about $11.3 million.
(See Table 5.)
For DOE's costs, information was requested from the DOE National LLW Program.
DOE reported that it had spent $4 million a year since 1986, for a total incurred cost through 199; of $32 million.
(Also see Table 5.)
Table 5 estimates the total cost of federal support to date - DOE plus NRC-at $43.3 million.
It should be noted that DOE expended funds in support of the compacting efforts prior to 1986.
We have been told informally that these costs total about $i8 million which would raise the DOE total to $50 million and the federal total to $61 million.
Table 6 shows the estimated total for U.S.
expenditures in response to the Acts (States costs, Compacts costs, NRC, and DOE costs) to be > $361 mill on.
(Note:
A presentation by EEI at the recent LLW Forum meeting indicated that generators have contributed over $700 million to the development of LLW disposal facilities.
OPP has requested supporting information and will provide this to the i
Commission when available.)
Foreign Costs for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal i
(Note:
All background and reference material supporting this discussion are contained in Tab 2 of the enclosed notebook.)
{
i To gain an international perspective regarding the cost and schedules for developing LLW disposal capacity, the Office of Internasional Programs requested certain information from i
Finland, zrance, Spain, and Sweden.
These countries had
.~
.. - ~
Comoitation of Costs for Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities 5
l demonstrated programs for the disposal of LLW in the same timeframe as the current U.S. effort to meet the LLRWPAA.
Information was requested from the organizations having l
regulatory and developmental responsibilities for each of these countries.
From the regulatory agency, we requested:
A.
costs for developing regulations for LLW disposal, such i
as the development of siting criteria and procedures for review and approval.of disposal methods B.
costs for public information, education,-and workshops, and incentives for host communities l
C.
costs for regulatory review of proposed sites and i
accompanying analyses i
From the organization responsible for development and/or l
operation of the disposal facility, we requested:
A.
costs for public information, education, and workshops, i
and incentives for host communities B.
costs.for site identification, consideration, i
evaluation, and selection C.-
costs, or projected costs, for development and use of i
disposal facility in the following categories l
I
-land j
-site preparation l
-construction j
-operation
{
-closure
-post-closure monitoring and remediation Responses to the above requests were received from Finland, I
Spain, and Sweden.
Other relevant information was obtained from j
the International Atomic Energy Agency and from sources such as
~
trip reports to foreign facilities, published articles, and j
facility broc
.ces.
This information provided the basis for-Table.7, whP. displays the cost summaries for the same i
categories used for U.S. disposal facilities, and Table 8 which
{
provides additional detail in the regulatory and. site development categories. _The total cost ranged from.approximately $21'million in Finland to $267 million in France to develop, construct, and' 3
place into operation disposal facilities. sized from 8000m to 10'm' respectively.
For these Finnish and French facilities,-
both of which started accepting LLW in 1992, the time for planning, development and construction was:five_ years anCLeight years.
Two of the foreign LLW disposal facilities, in France and Spain, are of a general design being pursued in the United' States.
Their experience in design, construction, and operating j
costs could provide States with a basis for cost projections.
1 1
i i
~
i Comoitation of Costs for low-level Weste Disoosal Facilities 6
Operating costs for the French facility are projected to be about
$2400/m ( $7 5 / f t*), for an annual disposal volume of 2-3x10'm.
3 Substantially higher costs are expected for disposal facilities 3
where the LLW throughput is much lower, such as the 200m / year in Finland.
Trends In Volumes and Curie Content of LLW for Disposal in the U.S.
(Note: The LLWMD " Summary and analysis of U.S.
experience and benefits from LLW volume reduction and the trends in curie content of LLW" contains the relevant Tables and analysis upon which this section is based.
It is contained at Tab 3 of the enclosed notebook.)
LLWMD used DOE's " State-by State Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Received at Commercial Disposal Sites (1980-1991)," to develop the Table in their Analysis Package at Tab-3 which shows national totals from 1980-1992 and percentage of volume and curie content by utility and non-utility source.
Although there have been substantial variations in both the volume of waste disposed and its curie content, the volume has generally been decreasing.
This decrease is likely due to economic factors which encourage volume reduction by decontamination and recycle, compaction, better administrative controls (e.g., housekeeping), and incineration.
It appears that the threat of having to pay the surcharges may have affected the trends between 1985 and 1990, but blips occur in both the volume and the curie content which make trends difficult to discern.
An example is the large increase in volume in 1992.
In this case, the threat of denial of access may have been the motivating 3
factor, combined with the high fee of $220/ft for access to the Barnwell disposal facility in the Southeast Compact.
Previously, 8
generators were paying a surcharge of $40/ft, or, for a State not in compliance, $120/ft'.
Other explanations for the somewhat random volume and curie revels have been offered by a representative from EEI/U Waste, who attributes some of the unpredictability of the volumes and activity levels to randon and some routine maintenance operatios's at reactors.
He indicated that when reactors clean out their spent fuel pools, control rod blades are disposed of, contributing low volumes and very high activity levels.
In addition, when reactors have an outage, frequently-they clean up their primary loops which would produce significant increases in activity levels and volumes.
We were not able the research the reasons for these variations.
l
d i
TABLE 1.-l Major Cost' Categories for LLW Disposal Facilites for Host states as: Reported by States Unless Otherwise Footnoted-
.' (millions of dollars, 2 digit accuracy)-
Host Total Costs Total Total Total Total Cost Lifecycle state /
to Date Regulatory Development Construc-to Costs Compact Costs Costs tion Costs Operation (Compact percentage (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)=
of (A)+(B)+(C)
National LLW-1992)
North 38 4.5 83 65 150 NP Carolina /
(to Southeast 3/29/93)
(21) b Illinois /
85*
NP NP; >$9.l NP NP NP Central (1987-3/93)
Midwest (17)
Texas 22 0.66 26 20 (1990$)
47 260
-(9)
(to (1990$)
3/10/93)
California 41 3.4 14 8.5-11 26-29 390
/ South-(FY86-92)
(1991$)
western (8)
Pennsyl-
>4.4 10 (1993$)
29 (1993$)
27 (1993$)
66 (1993$)
920 vania/
(1993$)
(1993$)
Appala-(5/85-6/92) chian (6) 1 s
..e
', - =
.m..
- -. +.. -
-te.,w.,
. - + - - -
..-e-a e-..m r.
,,.,mm-
.-.i-,
,,--.-m--.i.---_ew.-.--.,...-.m.
m--e e
.-E.-
..-..m---.
. ~... - --
4 4
TABLE 1.
CONTINUED Host Total Costs Total Total Total Total Cost Lifecycle State /
to Date Regulatory Development Construc-to Costs Compact Costs Costs tion Costs Operation (Compact Percentage (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)=
of (A)+(B)+(C)
National LLW-1992)
Nebraska /
47*
15 72 50' 140' NP d
Central (5)
Ohio /
0.07 NP NP NP NP NP Midwest (10/1/92 to (5) 3/31/93) h New York 35 NP; > 158 NP; >34 NP NP NP (4)
(to 12/31/92) 3 390 Massachu-0.23 NP 35 (1992$)
8.6 (1992$)
NP;>43 (1992$)
(1992$)
setts (3)
(1993S) 1 Connecti-9.5 HP NP;>25 NP NP NP cut /
(FY88-93)
(FY88-95)
Northeast (3)
New 2.1 NP 75 18 93 NP Jersey /
(FY90-92)
Northeast 4
(2)
Vermont 3.8 0.35 38 3.3 42 110
(<1)
(1992$)
Maine (<1) 9.3 NP 7.7 NP NP NP
i 0
TABLE 1.
CONTINUED Total Costs Total Total Total Total Cost Lifecycle to Date Regulatory Development Construc-to Costs Costs Costs tion Costs Operation (A)
(B)
(C)
(D)=
( A) + (B) + (C)
TOTALS
>300
>49
>450
>180
>610
>2,100 NP:
Not Provided by State Source:
Office of State Programs, N5dI-
" Letter from Governor of Illinois to Members of Illinois House of Representatives, 3/3/93 bfor Martinsville Siting Commission, Tom Ortciger, Director, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, ACNW Meeting, 3/23/93
- Nebraska Governor Nelson, February 18, 1993, including $6.3 million by US Ecology, Ron Gaynor, US Ecology, memo from Kitty Dragonette to Janet Lambert, 3/4/93 d122-50=72
' Richard Paton, Vice President, US Ecology, ACNW Meeting, 3/23/93
'$122 million project cost from letter from Secretary of Health and Environment, Kansas, to Chair, Central States Compact, 12/14/92, + regulatory cost (A) 8 Departments of Health and Environmental Control expenditures to 12/31/92 plus appropriations to 3/31/94 hNYS Siting Commission and ERDA expenditures to date plus appropriations to 3/31/94
' Development costs assumed to be all costs to date J(B) + (C).
(A) not provided.
P:\\MAJOCOST.SNS FINAL 4/26/93 e
v e--
w
e.
TABLE ' 2'.e LMajor:: Cost Categories ' for-LLW Disposal Facilities for. Other' 8tatesI Considered as Most: States as Reported by. States Unless Otherwise Footnoted l(millions of dollars, 2 digit: accuracy)-
Host. State Total' Costs Total Total Total Total Cost Lifecycle to Date Regulatory.
Development Construc-to Costs Costs Costs tion Costs Operation (A)
(B)
(C)
(D) = ( A) + (B)
+(C) b Michigan 10 NP;
-0*
27
>20
>47 890 (1988-1993)
(1988-1993) colorado NP 0.097 0.088 NA*
NA NA FY89-93 FY85-86 TOTALS
>10
>0.097 27
>20
>47 890 NP:
Not Provided by State Source:
Office-of State Programs, NRC NA:
Not Applicable i
e
' 'Never~became Agreement State
' 6Does not include licensing and some other costs
'No site developed.
Rocky Mountain / Northwest contract for disposal signed.
' P:\\0THEHOST.SNS FINAL 4/26/93 1
r 4
6 7
.-w..-,-..c.-
- - --....,,... -, ~,.
....,,,,,v,--rwa an...-n..-~.m,.,,,,n.w,n
.-,,n.
,,..~n en
,,,,.. + - -sn,,m,,,,m,
- a 4-
,,w,,--,-,,-,n
,,,.,,,,,,,,-_,a,.,w
.. v
_.e
-,,..nr me
.,-, ~
TABLE 3.
Compact Cost Categories as Reported by Compacts or States Unless Otherwise Footnoted (millions of dollars, 2 digit accuracy)
Compact Total Costs Administra-Local Costs Public Other (Percentage to Date tion National LLW-1992)
Southeast 2.8' 2.8" NP 0.06 1 (to (21)
(6/30/83-(6/30/83-Legislative 6/30/92) 6/30/92) 6/30/92)
Conference" Grant to Includes all Includes all North costs except costs except Carolina LLW funding funding Authority *C elements.
elements.
13 Capacity 0.17 Host Assurance 23' State Fee (to (6/30/83-Identifica-6/30/90)**
6/30/92) tion
- 6.2 Access Includes all 0.14 Fee (to costs.
Congression-6/30/92)*f al Consent" 6
Central-NP;>0.74 NP 0.34 grant to 0.4 to NP Midwest Martinsville proponents (16) during and opponents h
prelicensing of Martinsville6 Northwest NP NP NP NP NP (14)
Southwest 0.07 NP NP NP NP (8)
(FY93-94)
o e
Appalachian 0.86*
0.86*
NP NP NP (6)
(FY90-93)
(FY90-93)
Central (5)
NP NP NP NP NP Midwest (5) 3.2*
0.71*
NP 0.28 (FY92) 1.2 (FY88)
(FYB7-88,90-(FY87-88,92-special 93) 93) studies and site development 0.28 (FYB7) siting study Northeast 1.42 (FY87-0.47 0
0.15 (FYB7-0.8 (FY87-(5) 12/31/92)
(FY87-12/31/92) 12/31/92) 12/31/92)
Rocky 0.63*
0.58' NP NP 0.002 NW Mountain (2)
(FY89-90,91-(FY89-90,91-contract
- 93) 93) 0.018 NY v.
j USA Supreme Court cast
- 0.31 US Ecology case'
[
TOTALS
>10
>5
>0.34
>0.89
>1.8*
NP:
Not Provided by Compact nor State Source:
Office of State Programs,NRC
- Annual Report of Compact 6LLW Forum Meeting Report, April 1992, p. 7
'without funding elements
' funding element l
P:\\COSTCOMP.SNS FINAL 4/26/94 l
l
.o TABLE 4.
Summary of Total' Costs to Date (millions of doallars, 2 digit accuracy)
States / Compacts Total Costs to Date Host States (Table 1)
>300 Other States (Table 2)
>10 Compacts (Table 3)
>10 TOTAL
>320 Source:
Office of State Program, NRC P:\\COSTSUMM.SNS FINAL 4/26/93 i
9 i
E 5
[
f I
i i
t f
Table 5 NRC AND DOE RESOURCES EXPDTDED IN SUPPORT OF THE LLRWPA AND THE LLRWPAA Nuclear Reculatory Commission o
Estimated LLWMD/NMSS Incurred Costs from FY83 - FY93 (including program support and i,
travel and adjusted to NRC FTE's) - no records available before FY83.
$7,234,142 Source - April 1, 1993 NMSS Resource Analysis (attached) o Estimated SP Incurred Costs from FY80 -
FY93 (including travel, workshops, and i
the RSLO programs, adjusted to NRC FTE's)
$4,103,000 Source - April 22, 1993 SP Resource Analysis (attached) i NRC ESTIMATED TOTAL
$11.337.142 3
Department of Enerov o
DOE budget allocations in support of the States /Conpacts has been $4 million each year from 1986 - 1993.
(Support expenditures prior to that year were not specifically broken out in the budget.)
Source - Staff of DOE's National LLW Program in Idaho Falls DOE ESTIMATED TOTAL
> $32.000.000 TOTAL ESTIMATED NRC AND DOE COSTS INCURRED IN SUPPORT OF THE LLWPA AND THE LLRWPAA THROUGH 1993 -
>$43,340,000
7 c.
i Table 6 E8TINATED TOTAL U.S. EXPENDITURE 8 IN RE8PON8E TO THE LLRWPA AND THE 1985 LLRWPAA (TEROUGE 1993) k Estinated total costs to date Host States
> $300,000,000
- Other States
> $ 10,000,000
- Compacts 8,000,000
- subtotal
> $318,000,000 i
a NRC
> $ 11,340,000 **
.> $ 32,000,000 **
t l
Estimated Total to Date
> $361,000,000 Notes:
i from Tables 1,2,3, and 4 - which summarize the cost j
information reported to SP and OPP by the States and Compacts.
- from Table 5 t
e TABLE 7 COST-BUMMARIES FOR FOREIGN LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIES costs in millions of dollars-(except'as noted)
Cost Category Finland France Spain Sweden Regulatory 0.6 40 1.1 0.27 Developmental 2.7 37 21 14 Construction 18 190 45 137 Operation 9/yr 35/yr 4/yr 2.7/yr Closure /
4.5 165 8
14 Monitoring Type of Underground, Engineered Engineered Rock cavern, facility
>70m in bedrock vaults vaults 50m below seabed Schedule:
1987 to 1992 1984 to 1992 Start to operation Yearly volume 200m 2-3 x10'm3 3
Bold Numbers:
Costs provided by foreign source per IP request.
' Nonbold Numbers:
Costs obtained from other sources.
1 6
s
...e,-c.--,..-swo,--...,mm.,-r-,..,
.,-w r,-...,v-c...--
.w~.-+,....,
-...,-n._,..
- -..... - -. ~,. - - -, -., - - - - - - ~. - -
_ _~.
TACLE 8 4
- COST.-CATEGORIE8 FOR FOREIGN LLW DISPOSAL FACILITIESi (costs'in millions of dollars)
Finland France
' Spain Sweden REGULATORY COST 8 Develop Regs 0.1
)
0.5 Public Info 0.1
)
40 0.08 Regulatory
- 0. 3 '
)
)
0.42 review Inspection 0.15
)
1.1 1.7 DEVELOPMENT / OPERATIONAL COST 8 Public 4
0.14 I
info / incentives Site selection 2.7 17 10.6 0.14 Land 0.1
)
Site 20 5.8
)
14 preparation Construction 18 190 45 137 Operation 9/yr 35/yr 4/yr 2.7/yr Closure 4.5 165 8
14 Monitoring 14 NA Bold Numbers:
Costs-provided by foreign source per IP request.
Nonbold Numbers:
Costs obtained from other sources.
t.
J 3-ev.,m_.- ww.ww.w,.m+.-e-w.m-
..ww+e.m.--w.,e<-<*4m - w +-e r -i. e rr -. e
--t.-wws-,--m,-, - m.e s. w e ver w -w w. - =c w e
-n %.
w-m -,
-e m-, y ew-- w. we,w e we w m.w-,-r-+&...m m -vw
.--,w
- m w w-w--
.e % v 4 *%e.
r
a i
TABLE 9 LOW-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE RECEIVED AT COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL SITES 1980 - 1992' National Totals Percentage By Source Specific Non-Utility Utility Volume Activity Activity Academic Government Industrial Medical Total Total Year (ft3)
(Cl)
(uci/cc)
(Vol) (Act) (Vol) (Act) (Vol) (Act) (Vol) (Act) (Vol) (Act) (Vol) (Act) 1980 3,770,412 332,845 3.1 48.0 72.6 52.0 27.4 46.0 66.4 54.0 33.6 1981 3,100,244 279,863 3.2 1982 2,680,070 413,898 5.5 21.4 36.2 78.6 63.8 36.0 4.0 64.0 96.0 1983 2,708,710 505,340 6.6 3.0 2.0 28.0 3.0 32.0 2.0 38.0 26.5 62.0 73.4 1984 2,663,754-600,909 8.0 2.0 2.0 1985 2,580,650 748,874 9.9 1.7 0.1 3.3 1.0 36.8 21.1 1.2
<0.1 43.0 22.2 57.0 77.8 j
1986 1,804,998 233,740 4.6 1.6
<0.1 4.5 2.1 35.3 24.9 1.3
<0.1 42.7 27.0 57.3 73.0 1987 1,841,637 269,550 5.2 2.6
<0.1 7.2 2.7 36.3 15.7 1.5
<0.1 47.6 18.5 52.4 81.5 1988 1,427,850 259,661 6.4 3.1 0.7 6.1 3.6 32.7 13.3 1.5
<0.1 43.4 17.8 56.6 82.2 1989 1,625,862 866,868 18.8 4.1 0.2 7.0 1.4 34.7 14.7 2.1
<0.1 47.9 16.3 52.1 83.7 l
1990 1,143,315 547,902 16.9 4.3 0.2 6.3 1.9 31.2 18.7 2.0
<0.1 43.8 20.9 56.2 79.1 1991 1,369,162 799,811 20.6 3.5 0.1 7.6 2.4 40.2 9.0 2.1
<0.1 53.4 11.5 46.6 88.5 l
1992 1,744,539 1,000,103 20.2 2.5 0.2 9.1 4.1 52.1 10.0 1.5
<0.1 65.2 14.3 34.8 85.7 Data not available
' " State-by-State Assessment of low-level Radioactive Waste Received at Commercial Disposal Sites
[
l
-(1980-1991)," U.S. Department of Energy,' National low-level. Waste Management Program, t
1