DOE/RW-0591

Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program,

Fiscal Year 2007

July 2008

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Washington, D.C.
DOE/RW-0591 ii July 2008 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
DOE/RW-0591 iii July 2008 

This publication was produced by the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) 

For further information contact: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Waste Management Office, RW-9 

1000 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20585 

or: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Office of External Affairs, RW-14 

1551 Hillshire Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89134 

or call: 

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

1-800-225-6972 

or visit: 

 the OCRWM Home Page: 

http://www.rw.doe.gov 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 iv July 2008 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 v July 2008 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) of the Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management Program presents the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management’s 

(OCRWM) May 2007 total system cost estimate for the disposal of the Nation’s spent nuclear 

fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The TSLCC analysis provides a basis for 

assessing the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) Fee as required by Section 302 of the 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended. In addition, the TSLCC analysis 

provides a basis for the calculation of the Government’s share of disposal costs for 

government-owned and managed SNF and HLW. The TSLCC estimate includes both historical 

costs and costs projected through decommissioning of the Yucca MountFain Repository in 2133. 

This estimate updates the last published TSLCC, which was released in 2001. The 2001 estimate 

was reported in constant 2000 dollars and this estimate is in 2007 dollars. To provide 

comparison, summary level charts within the 2007 TSLCC are stated in both 2000 and 2007 

dollars. 

The TSLCC spans the period of 1983 to the assumed closure date of 2133, and totals $96.18 

billion in constant 2007 dollars, as reflected in Table ES-1. For comparison purposes to the 2001 

TSLCC, Table ES-2 states the 2007 TSLCC estimate as $79.34 billion in constant 2000 dollars. 

The difference of $16.84 billion is due to inflation from 2000 to 2007. Tables ES-3 and ES-4 

summarize the 2001 TSLCC estimate in constant 2007 and 2000 dollars, respectively. 

Assumptions used for the development of the 2007 TSLCC estimate were a snapshot in time, and 

program plans will continue to evolve. The schedules identified in this report are assumed for 

cost estimating purposes and reflect the previously assumed start of operations date of 2017. All 

of the schedules outlined in this estimate are currently being reevaluated and revised assumptions 

will be used in future cost estimates. 

The TSLCC estimate is based on the acceptance, transport and permanent disposal in the Yucca 

Mountain Repository (Repository) of all currently projected civilian and defense wastes, 

estimated to be 122,100 Metric Tons Heavy Metal (MTHM) of SNF and HLW. The estimated 

total of civilian SNF is 109,300 MTHM, based on data that includes discharge projections from 

the 47 reactor license extensions granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as of 

January 2007. Any discharge from potential new reactors is not assumed. As more utilities 

receive reactor license extensions and additional reactors are built, the discharge projections will 

increase and be reflected in future TSLCC estimates. It is assumed that the Civilian Radioactive 

Waste Management Program (the Program) will dispose of the full inventory of approximately 

12,800 MTHM of government-owned SNF and HLW. 

The NWPA, as amended, set a statutory limit of 70,000 MTHM for the amount of SNF and 

HLW that can be emplaced in the first geologic repository before a second repository is in 

operation. The Administration has proposed legislation that would remove the current 70,000 

MTHM statutory limit, and a recommendation on the need for a second repository will be issued 

in 2008. However, current cost information, designs, or authorization for a second repository do 

not exist. Therefore, for purposes of this cost estimate, a one-repository system, containing all 

waste, is assumed. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 vi July 2008 

For the purposes of analyzing the cost changes between the 2001 and 2007 TSLCC estimates, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) used a recommendation made in the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-05-182, “Defense Acquisitions: Information for 

Congress on Performance of Major Programs Can Be More Complete, Timely, and Accessible,” 

March 2005. GAO recommended measuring change in the same year constant dollars because 

that removes the effects of inflation, which are beyond the control of individual programs, and 

measures real program cost growth. Additionally, showing cost variances in unit costs 

eliminates from the analysis the impacts of the growth in waste quantities requiring disposal 

(increased scope). 

Table ES-1. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$) 

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

 (2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Repository 9,910 54,820 64,730 

Transportation 780 19,480 20,250 

Balance of Program 2,860 8,340 11,200 

Total 13,540 82,640 96,180 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 

Table ES-2. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$) 

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

 (2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Repository 8,170 45,220 53,390 

Transportation 640 16,070 16,710 

Balance of Program 2,360 6,880 9,240 

Total 11,170 68,170 79,340 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 

2007 TSLCC Total 

Cost 2007 TSLCC MHTM 

2007 TSLCC 

Cost/MTHM 

Cost per MTHM (in 2000$) $79,340 122,100 $0.650 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 vii July 2008 

Table ES-3. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$) 

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

 (2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Repository 8,170 43,810 51,980 

Transportation 580 8,100 8,680 

Balance of Program 2,250 6,810 9,070 

Total 11,000 58,720 69,730 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. Historical costs are assumed to be Development and 

Evaluation costs for the 2001 TSLCC Estimate, see Table A-1. 

Table ES-4. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$) 

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2002) 

Future Costs 

 (2003 – 2119) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2119) 

Repository 6,740 36,140 42,880 

Transportation 480 6,680 7,160 

Balance of Program 1,860 5,620 7,480 

Total 9,080 48,440 57,520 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. Historical costs are assumed to be Development and 

Evaluation costs for the 2001 TSLCC Estimate, see Table A-1. 

2001 TSLCC Total 

Cost 2001 TSLCC MHTM 

2001 TSLCC 

Cost/MTHM 

Cost per MTHM (in 2000$) $57,520 97,000 $0.593 

Tables ES-2 and ES-4 show that, excluding inflation, the unit cost per metric ton for disposal has 

increased by approximately 10% between the 2001 and 2007 TSLCC estimates. 

Summary of Appendix A, Comparison of the 2007 and 2001 TSLCC Estimates 

The 2007 TSLCC estimate represents a 38 percent cost increase (in constant dollars) from the 

comparable May 2001 TSLCC estimate, entitled Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of 

the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/RW-0533. The primary driver for 

the cost increase is the 26 percent increase in waste quantity (from 97,000 MTHM in FY2001 to 

122,100 MTHM in FY2007). The larger quantity of MTHM captured in the 2007 TSLCC 

directly affects the duration or quantity of various key elements, resulting in cost increases. For 

example, the waste transportation period is extended by 16 years and the emplacement period by 

25 years, there is an 18 percent increase in required waste packages, and there is a 35 percent 

increase in Transportation shipments. 

The secondary cost driver is the further refinement and specificity in system designs since the 

2001 estimate. For example, the 2001 TSLCC rail line estimate was an average of the multiple 

routes being considered at the time. Subsequently, the Department decided to study possible rail 

alignments in only two corridors, the Caliente and Mina Corridors. For budget projection 

purposes, detailed cost estimates have been provided based on costs associated with the Caliente 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 viii July 2008 

Corridor, since projected costs for the Caliente Corridor exceed those for the Mina Corridor. As 

a second example, more engineering design details for the surface facilities are now available 

than were available in 2001. In 2005, the Program adopted a canister-based system design which 

simplified design and operational requirements at the repository surface facilities, providing 

greater confidence in the licensing and construction of the surface facilities. The canister-based 

system saves significant construction and operational costs, but the costs for purchasing the 

canisters offset some of these savings. 

Appendix A contains a detailed analysis of the cost and assumption changes between the 2001 

and 2007 TSLCC estimates. 

Commercial/Defense Share 

The TSLCC estimate is used as the basis for the calculation of the Government’s share of 

disposal costs for Department of Energy (DOE)-owned and managed SNF and HLW. The 

Program is funded on a full-cost recovery basis, with generators of waste funding their respective 

disposal costs. The cost allocation is based on the methodology published in the August 20, 

1987, Federal Register Notice (52 FR 31508). The 2007 calculation indicates that 

approximately 80 percent (i.e., 80.4 percent) of the costs are due to the disposal of commercial 

SNF and HLW and are to be paid from the NWF. The Government is expected to make annual 

appropriations to pay for approximately 20 percent (i.e., 19.6 percent) of the Program’s cost for 

disposal of Government wastes. This is a change from the 2001 TSLCC, where the 

commercial/defense share was approximately 73 percent commercial and 27 percent defense. 

The change in the percentage is primarily due to the increase in commercial SNF and HLW 

assumed to be brought into the system, while the defense SNF and HLW has remained relatively 

constant. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 ix July 2008 

CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................v 

1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1 

1.1 Purpose and Scope ...........................................................................................................3 

1.2 Comparison between the 2001 and 2007 TSLCC............................................................4 

1.3 Major Programmatic Assumptions ..................................................................................5 

2. YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY .....................................................................................7 

2.1 Yucca Mountain Repository Scope .................................................................................7 

2.1.1 Licensing..............................................................................................................8 

2.1.2 Repository Surface & Subsurface Facilities ........................................................9 

2.1.3 Drip Shields and Waste Packages......................................................................12 

2.1.4 Monitoring and Closure .....................................................................................12 

2.2 Yucca Mountain Repository Assumptions ....................................................................14 

2.3 Repository Costs ............................................................................................................15 

2.3.1 Repository Development & Evaluation.............................................................16 

2.3.2 Repository Engineering, Procurement, and Construction..................................17 

2.3.3 Repository Emplacement Operations ................................................................18 

2.3.4 Repository Monitoring.......................................................................................18 

2.3.5 Repository Closure.............................................................................................19 

3. TRANSPORTATION..............................................................................................................19 

3.1 Transportation Scope .....................................................................................................19

3.2 Transportation Assumptions ..........................................................................................19 

3.3 Transportation Costs ......................................................................................................23 

3.3.1 National Transportation Project.........................................................................24 

3.3.2 Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project.....................................................................27 

4. BALANCE OF PROGRAM....................................................................................................28 

4.1 Balance of Program Scope.............................................................................................28 

4.1.1 Quality Assurance..............................................................................................29 

4.1.2 Waste Management............................................................................................29 

4.1.3 Program Management........................................................................................29 

4.1.4 Benefits, Payments Equal to Taxes, Outreach, and Institutional.......................30 

4.1.5 Other Agencies...................................................................................................30 

4.2 Balance of Program Assumptions..................................................................................31 

4.3 Balance of Program Costs..............................................................................................32 

5. COMMERCIAL/DEFENSE COST SHARE ALLOCATION................................................32 

APPENDIX A - COMPARISON WITH 2001 TOTAL SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE COST ......... A-1 

APPENDIX B - ANNUAL COST PROFILE .............................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C - REFERENCES..................................................................................................C-1 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 x July 2008 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 xi July 2008 

FIGURES 

Page 

2-1. Yucca Mountain Site..............................................................................................................8 

2-2. Primary Repository Surface Facilities .................................................................................10 

2-3. Waste Packages and Drip Shields........................................................................................13 

B-1. Annual Total System Life Cycle Cost Profile ...................................................................B-1 

TABLES 

Page 

ES-1. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$)................. vi 

ES-2. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$)................. vi 

ES-3. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$)................ vii 

ES-4. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$)................ vii 

1-1. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$)...................2 

1-2. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$)...................2 

1-3. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$)...................3 

1-4. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$)...................3 

2-1. Repository Costs by Phase (in Millions of 2007$) ..............................................................16 

2-2. Repository Development & Evaluation Costs (in Millions of 2007$) ................................17 

2-3. Repository Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Costs (in Millions of 

2007$) ..................................................................................................................................17 

2-4. Repository Operations Costs (in Millions of 2007$)...........................................................18 

2-5. Repository Monitoring Costs (in Millions of 2007$) ..........................................................18 

2-6. Repository Closure Costs (in Millions of 2007$)................................................................19 

3-1. Assumed Acceptance Rates for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel.......................................20 

3-2. Assumed Acceptance Rates for DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel ..................................................21 

3-3. Assumed Acceptance Rates for High-Level Radioactive Waste.........................................22 

3-4. Transportation Cost Summary (in Millions of 2007$) ........................................................24 

3-5. National Transportation Project Costs (in Millions of 2007$) ............................................25 

3-6. National Transportation Project Future Costs (in Millions of 2007$).................................26 

3-7. Transportation Cask Fleet....................................................................................................26 

3-8. Transportation Rolling Stock Fleet......................................................................................26 

3-9. Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project Costs (in Millions of 2007$)........................................28 

3-10. Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project Future Costs (in Millions of 2007$).............................28 

4-1. Balance of Program Cost Summary (in Millions of 2007$)................................................32 

5-1. Commercial and Defense Shares (in Billions of 2007$) .....................................................33 

5-2. Detailed Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Cost Share Allocations (in 

Millions of 2007$) ...............................................................................................................33 

A-1. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 TSLCC Costs (in Millions of 2000$).............................. A-1 

A-2. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 TSLCC Assumptions....................................................... A-3 

B-1. Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$).......................................................................B-2 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 xii July 2008 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 xiii July 2008 

ACRONYMS 

AULG Affected Units of Local Government 

BWR Boiling Water Reactor 

CA Construction Authorization 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMF Cask Maintenance Facility 

CRCF Canister Receipt and Closure Facility 

CRD Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Document 

CRWMS Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System 

CSNF Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DPC Dual-Purpose Canister 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EM Office of Environmental Management 

EPC Engineer, Procure, and Construct 

FOC Full Operating Capability 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office 

GROA Geologic Repository Operations Area 

HH Heavy Haul 

HLW High-Level Radioactive Waste 

IHF Initial Handling Facility 

IOC Initial Operating Capability 

IPWF Immobilized Plutonium Waste Form 

LA License Application 

LWT Legal Weight Truck 

MCO Multicanister Overpack 

MR Management Reserve 

MTHM Metric Ton(s) of Heavy Metal 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 xiv July 2008 

ACRONYMS (Continued) 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRL Nevada Rail Line 

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 

NWF Nuclear Waste Fund 

NWTRB Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 

OCRWM Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

PETT Payments Equal To Taxes 

PWR Pressurized Water Reactor 

QA Quality Assurance 

REMY Rail Equipment Maintenance Yard 

RF Receipt Facility 

RSC Regional Servicing Contractor 

SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel 

TAD Transportation, Aging, and Disposal 

TEV Transport and Emplacement Vehicle 

TSLCC Total System Life Cycle Cost 

UCF Uncanistered Fuel 

WHF Wet Handling Facility 

WVDP West Valley Demonstration Project 

YOE Year of Expenditure 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 1 July 2008 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost (TSLCC) of the Civilian Radioactive Waste 

Management Program presents the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management’s 

(OCRWM) most recent total system cost estimate for disposal of the Nation’s spent nuclear fuel 

(SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The TSLCC analysis provides the basis for 

assessing the adequacy of the Nuclear Waste Fund Fee as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act (NWPA), as amended. In addition, the TSLCC analysis is the basis for the calculation of the 

Government’s share of disposal costs for DOE-owned and managed SNF and HLW, and Naval 

SNF. This TSLCC estimate includes both historical costs and costs projected through the 

assumed decommissioning date of 2133 for a single permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. 

The cost estimates in the TSLCC analysis reflect the Department’s best estimates – given the 

scope of the work identified and the planned schedule of required activities. 

The design and emplacement concepts for the system used to develop the cost estimate are based 

on the canister-based system described in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 

Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, (DOE 2007, DOE/EIS-0250FS1D). The canister-based system design will be used for the License Application (LA) to be 

submitted by the Department to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for authorization to 

construct the Repository. The design will continue to develop as more information becomes 

available and the engineering design progresses. 

This TSLCC estimate is an update to the May 2001 Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost 

of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/RW-0533, previously published 

by the Department. The update from the 2001 TSLCC estimate includes a 26 percent increase in 

the quantities of SNF and HLW entering the repository system, changes in design, refinements in 

cost estimates, and updates to unit costs for materials. The assumed waste stream for this 

estimate is 122,100 metric tons (MTHM) of defense SNF, defense and commercial HLW, and 

current and projected discharges of SNF from commercial utilities, including future discharges 

from 47 reactors that had received operating license extensions as of January 2007. 

Assumptions used for the development of the 2007 TSLCC estimate were a snapshot in time, and 

program plans will continue to evolve. The schedules identified in this report are assumed for 

cost estimating purposes and reflect the previously assumed start of operations date of 2017. All 

of the schedules outlined in this estimate are currently being reevaluated and revised assumptions 

will be used in the next issues of future cost estimates. 

The revised total life cycle cost estimate is $96.18 billion in constant 2007 dollars. Historical 

costs for the period from 1983 through the end of 2006 are $13.54 billion in constant 2007 

dollars. The estimated future cost from FY2007 through permanent closure and 

decommissioning of the Repository is approximately $82.64 billion in constant 2007 dollars. 

Table 1-1 provides a summary of the major TSLCC cost categories, consisting of the Repository, 

Transportation, and the Balance of Program elements. Appendix B shows the annual life cycle 

cost for the Program by element in constant 2007 dollars. As the design and operations of the 

system continue to evolve, periodic reassessments of projected costs will be required. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 2 July 2008 

For the purposes of analyzing the cost changes between the 2001 and 2007 TSLCC estimates, the 

Department used a recommendation made in the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

Report GAO-05-182, “Defense Acquisitions: Information for Congress on Performance of 

Major Programs Can Be More Complete, Timely, and Accessible,” March 2005. The report 

recommended measuring change in same year constant dollars because that removes the effects 

of inflation, which are beyond the control of individual programs, and measures real program 

cost growth. Additionally, showing cost variances in unit costs eliminates the impacts of the 

growth in waste quantities (increased scope) requiring disposal. 

For comparison purposes to the 2001 TSLCC, Table 1-2 adjusts for the effects of inflation and 

converts the 2007 TSLCC estimate to $79.34 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Tables 1-3 and 

1-4 summarize the 2001 TSLCC estimate in constant 2007 and 2000 dollars, respectively. 

Table 1-1. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

 (2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Repository 9,910 54,820 64,730 

Transportation 780 19,480 20,250 

Balance of Program 2,860 8,340 11,200 

Total 13,540 82,640 96,180 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 

Table 1-2. Summary of the 2007 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

 (2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Repository 8,170 45,220 53,390 

Transportation 640 16,070 16,710 

Balance of Program 2,360 6,880 9,240 

Total 11,170 68,170 79,340 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 

2007 TSLCC Total 

Cost 2007 TSLCC MHTM 

2007 TSLCC 

Cost/MTHM 

Cost per MTHM (in 2000$) $79,340 122,100 $0.650 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 3 July 2008 

Table 1-3. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2007 Dollars (in Millions of 2007$) 

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

 (2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Repository 8,170 43,810 51,980 

Transportation 580 8,100 8,680 

Balance of Program 2,250 6,810 9,070 

Total 11,000 58,720 69,730 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. Historical costs are assumed to be Development and 

Evaluation costs for the 2001 TSLCC Estimate, see Table A-1. 

Table 1-4. Summary of the 2001 TSLCC Estimate – 2000 Dollars (in Millions of 2000$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2002) 

Future Costs 

 (2003 – 2119) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2119) 

Repository 6,740 36,140 42,880 

Transportation 480 6,680 7,160 

Balance of Program 1,860 5,620 7,480 

Total 9,080 48,440 57,520 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. Historical costs are assumed to be Development and 

Evaluation costs for the 2001 TSLCC Estimate, see Table A-1. 

2001 TSLCC Total 

Cost 2001 TSLCC MHTM 

2001 TSLCC 

Cost/MTHM 

Cost per MTHM (in 2000$) $57,520 97,000 $0.593 

Tables 1-2 and 1-4 show that, excluding inflation, the unit cost per metric ton for disposal has 

increased by approximately 10% between the 2001 and 2007 TSLCC estimates. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 

This TSLCC estimate aids in financial planning, provides policy makers with information for 

determining the course of the Program, and is an input for the assessment on the adequacy of the 

one mill ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour fee charged to generators of commercial spent nuclear fuel 

(CSNF). This TSLCC analysis provides an updated total system cost estimate consistent with 

the design described in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic 

Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 

Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, (DOE 2007, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D). Since this estimate is for a 

system that will operate for over 100 years into the future, the concept upon which the estimate is 

based should be viewed only as representative of the system that may ultimately be developed. 

The TSLCC estimate should not be interpreted as a final, definitive estimate. Numerous 

assumptions were required with respect to the waste management system design and operations 

where final decisions have not yet been made. Since these assumptions are critical to the 

resulting cost estimates, any changes in assumptions would influence the resulting estimate. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 4 July 2008 

Assumptions used in these analyses are for cost analysis purposes and should not be interpreted 

as final DOE policy. 

This TSLCC analysis is organized as follows: 

Section 1. Introduction: This section introduces the reader to the overall purpose and scope of 

this analysis and summarizes the results and conclusions. 

Section 2. Repository: This section discusses the Repository scope, assumptions, and costs 

included for each of five elements of the system life cycle including: Licensing; Surface & 

Subsurface Facilities; Waste Packages & Drip Shields; Performance Confirmation; and 

Regulatory, Infrastructure, & Management Support. 

Section 3. Transportation: This section discusses the scope, assumptions, and costs for each of 

the Transportation system’s two projects – National Transportation and Nevada Rail 

Infrastructure. 

Section 4. Balance of Program: This section discusses Balance of Program scope. These 

activities include Quality Assurance (QA); Waste Management; Program Management; Benefits, 

Payments Equal To Taxes (PETT), Outreach, & Institutional; and costs associated with the NRC, 

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB), and Nuclear Waste Negotiator that are 

funded from the NWF separately from the OCRWM budget. 

Section 5. Commercial/Defense Cost Share Allocation: This section discusses calculation of the 

Government’s share of disposal costs for DOE-owned SNF and HLW. The Program is funded 

on a full-cost recovery basis, with waste generators funding their respective disposal costs. 

Appendices: In addition, there are three Appendices in this report. Appendix A provides some 

specific comparisons of the 2001 TSLCC to the 2007 TSLCC with a table that compares cost 

details and a table that compares the assumptions used for each estimate. Appendix B provides 

the annual total system life cycle cost profile of the Program. Appendix C provides a list of 

documents cited within the Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Program. 

1.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE 2001 AND 2007 TSLCC 

The 2007 TSLCC estimated cost represents a 38 percent increase (in constant dollars) from the 

May 2001 TSLCC estimate, entitled Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management Program, DOE/RW-0533. This cost estimate reflects a 26 

percent increase in waste quantity (from 97,000 MTHM in FY2001 to 122,100 MTHM in 

FY2007), an 18 percent increase in required waste packages, and a 35 percent increase in 

transportation shipments. In addition to increases in other activities, materials, and durations due 

to the increased waste stream, this estimate also reflects updated material costs, more detailed 

cost estimates reflecting greater specificity in system designs, and the addition of the 

Transportation, Aging, and Disposal (TAD) canister-based system. An example of the greater 

specificity is the estimate for the Nevada rail line. The 2001 estimate was based on a nonspecific 

route, and the 2007 estimate is based on the detailed takeoffs for the Caliente Route. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 5 July 2008 

The larger quantity of MTHM captured in the 2007 TSLCC directly affects the duration of 

various key projects, resulting in cost increases. Due to the increased waste quantities in the 

2007 TSLCC, the waste transportation period is extended by 16 years and the emplacement 

period by 25 years. Furthermore, the estimate assumes a period of 50 years after the last 

emplacement to allow for additional monitoring and cooling before closure. 

The adoption of a canister-based system design has lowered costs and simplified design and 

operational requirements at the repository surface facilities, but has increased costs for 

purchasing the TAD canisters. In the previous design, wastes were sealed into reusable 

transportation casks at the utilities and shipped to the repository. At the repository, the waste 

was repackaged into disposal canisters for emplacement. In the canister-based system, a single 

canister is used for transportation, aging, and disposal, minimizing waste handling at the 

Repository. For the first 70,000 MTHM, the cost savings offset the additional costs for the 

canisters. When estimating the full inventory, the canister purchases under current assumptions 

are somewhat higher than the surface facility savings offset. 

The cost estimate presented in this TSLCC is parametric in nature. Variation in estimating 

assumptions can affect life cycle cost estimates. Examples include changes in the number of 

reactor license extensions, and variations in raw materials costs for high-volume items such as 

waste packages, TAD canisters, transportation casks, and transportation rolling stock. 

1.3 MAJOR PROGRAMMATIC ASSUMPTIONS 

The basis of the cost estimates used in the current analysis include costs for development, 

operation, monitoring, closure, and decommissioning of a canister-based waste management 

system for handling SNF and HLW. Under this system, the Department would accept most SNF 

in canisters sealed at commercial generators for transport to the Repository, provide temporary 

surface storage at the Repository, if necessary, and place the canisters in a waste package 

suitable for ultimate disposal underground at the Repository. Major programmatic assumptions 

are provided below. Later sections discussing the Repository, Transportation, and the Balance of 

Program identify specific assumptions used to achieve the cost estimating analysis for that area. 

The major program-level assumptions that affect the TSLCC are as follows: 

1. The waste management system is assumed to accept the following: 

a. Actual and projected CSNF discharges, including discharges from the 47 reactors 

with license extensions as of January 1, 2007. 

b. No new nuclear plants are included in this estimate. 

c. 2,788 canisters of DOE SNF and 400 canisters of Naval SNF (2,500 MTHM 

equivalent). 

d. 19,667 canisters (10,300 MTHM equivalent) of Defense HLW. 

2. It is assumed for this estimate that CSNF fuel acceptance will follow the process in the 

Standard Contract using the Oldest Fuel First acceptance priority. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 6 July 2008 

3. The TSLCC assumes the following near term milestones: 

a. Submittal of the License Application to the NRC in 2008 

b. Repository Construction Authorization by the NRC in 2011 

c. Receive and possess License Application submittal to the NRC in 2013 

d. Repository construction complete for initial operations in 2016 

e. Initial waste receipt at the repository is assumed for the purposes of this report to 

begin in 2017. 

4. Funding is not constrained, providing consistent and sufficient funding for the 

Program as needed. 

5. Potential schedule delays are not included in the estimate. The Program’s schedule 

could be impacted by increased time for NRC license or license amendment reviews, 

delays in the issuance of other necessary regulatory permits or authorizations, 

litigation, new legislation, and constrained funding. 

6. Costs for the siting and construction of a second repository are not included. The 

NWPA, as amended, limits the amount of SNF and HLW in Yucca Mountain to 

70,000 MTHM prior to the start of operations at a second repository. For purposes of 

this estimate, it is assumed that all the SNF and HLW are disposed of in Yucca 

Mountain. OCRWM has not estimated costs for a second repository and expects the 

Department to report to the President and the Congress in 2008 on the need for such a 

repository. 

7. It is assumed that approximately 90% of the CSNF will be accepted in TAD canisters. 

The remainder will be received as uncanistered (bare, intact) assemblies in rail or truck 

transportations casks. 

8. SNF and HLW associated with the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex managed 

by the Department’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) and SNF from the 

U.S. Navy will be disposed in Yucca Mountain. These wastes and materials will be 

accepted consistent with existing agreements, the Memorandum of Agreement with 

the U.S. Navy, and the 2001 Integrated Acceptance Schedule in place with EM. 

9. Defense HLW and SNF will be delivered to Yucca Mountain in sealed, disposable 

canisters, with the exception of 200 MTHM of intact commercial-origin DOE SNF 

that can be accepted bare. 

10. Repository plans include disposal of only SNF or HLW that is not subject to 

regulations as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Subtitle C. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 7 July 2008 

11. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is defined as the ability to receive and emplace 

HLW, Naval and DOE SNF, and standard CSNF as defined in the Standard Contract. 

The IOC includes Canister Receipt and Closure Facility (CRCF)-1, Wet Handling 

Facility (WHF), Initial Handling Facility (IHF), Aging Pad K, and supporting surface 

and subsurface facilities. 

12. Full Operating Capability (FOC) is defined as all IOC facilities plus the Receipt 

Facility (RF), CRCF-2, CRCF-3, and the expansion of surface and subsurface 

facilities. 

13. Added physical security systems to meet post-2001 security requirements are 

incorporated into Repository and Transportation Facility designs, systems, 

construction, and operations. Near-term security program cost estimates within the 

Balance of Program include protective forces; personnel, information, and operations 

security; material control and accountability; and security and contingency related 

training, risk analysis, and program management. 

2. YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY 

2.1 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY SCOPE 

The Yucca Mountain site is located on Federal land in a remote area of Nye County in 

southern Nevada, one of the most arid regions of the United States, approximately 90 miles 

northwest of Las Vegas. The Federal government controls nearly all of the land in the region. 

As shown in Figure 2-1, the area needed for the Repository encompasses land controlled by three 

Federal agencies: the U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. Air Force, Nevada Test and Training 

Range), the DOE (Nevada Test Site), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

The conceptual repository design draws on extensive nuclear design-related experience, 

including: NRC regulations; NRC-approved industry codes and standards; and proven 

technology in use at NRC-licensed installations, international nuclear facilities, and mining 

operations worldwide. In addition, the NRC requires that systems, structures, and components 

important to safety be designed to withstand natural phenomena, including earthquakes, floods, 

and tornadoes (10 CFR Part 63, Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a 

Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada). 

Assumptions used for the development of the 2007 TSLCC estimate were a snapshot in time, and 

program plans will continue to evolve. The schedules identified in this report are assumed for 

cost estimating purposes and reflect the previously assumed start of operations date of 2017. All 

of the schedules outlined in this estimate are currently being reevaluated and revised assumptions 

will be used in the next issues of future cost estimates. 

Although receipt and emplacement rates are expected to meet the requirements of the Civilian 

Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Document (CRD), the actual 

emplacement rate can be adjusted based on such considerations as heat loads of the waste 

packages and the processing capabilities of the surface facilities. Surface staging will be 

provided at the Repository to compensate for any differences between receipt and emplacement 

rates. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 8 July 2008 

Figure 2-1. Yucca Mountain Site 

After emplacement of the nuclear waste inventory has been completed and the monitoring and 

performance confirmation program has shown that the Repository will perform as expected, the 

Repository will be closed. Closure activities include sealing and backfilling all openings to the 

surface, dismantling the surface facilities, restoring the surface area as closely as possible to 

original conditions, preparing a postclosure monitoring plan, and protecting the Repository from 

unauthorized intrusion. 

2.1.1 Licensing 

The report assumes that the Department will submit a License Application (LA) to the NRC in 

2008. The LA will provide the basis for an NRC decision on authorization for DOE to construct 

a repository at the Yucca Mountain site. Upon receipt, the NRC will conduct a preliminary 

review of the LA to determine whether it will be docketed. 

The NRC and the Department conduct interactions on a variety of topics in order to facilitate 

timely review of the LA. These interactions will continue during the docketing and technical 

reviews of the application. The NRC will conduct a technical review and initiate licensing 

proceedings on the LA. The DOE will respond to technical questions and requests for additional 

information on design, science, and site work from the NRC in a timely fashion. Following 

completion of the NRC’s review of the LA and issuance of its Safety Evaluation Report on the 

application, the Department will support discovery and all other activities associated with the 

licensing process. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 9 July 2008 

2.1.2 Repository Surface & Subsurface Facilities 

2.1.2.1 Repository Surface Facilities 

The Yucca Mountain surface facilities include the geologic repository operations area (GROA), 

the North Portal area, the South Portal development area, the North Construction Portal 

development area, the balance of plant area, and the surface shaft areas. The Repository 

operations areas and supporting areas (including utilities and roads) use as much as 1,500 acres 

(6 sq km) of land. Of this total, about 320 acres (1.3 sq km) have been disturbed by Repository 

activities since 1991. The surface portion of the Repository operations area includes the 

facilities necessary to receive, package, and support emplacement of waste in the Repository. 

Waste transfer operations are conducted inside reinforced concrete and metal frame buildings 

that are designed and constructed to withstand earthquakes and other natural phenomena. 

Workers, protected from radiation by shielded transfer equipment, shield walls, or both, use 

remotely controlled equipment to remove the waste forms from transportation casks and insert 

them into waste packages. 

The primary facilities in the surface design are illustrated in Figure 2-2 and described below: 

• Initial Handling Facility (IHF)—Rail transportation casks containing Naval SNF or 

HLW canisters are assumed to be received at the IHF. The canisters are transferred to 

waste packages, and the waste packages are closed and down-ended for transfer to the 

waste package transport and emplacement vehicle (TEV).

• Receipt Facility (RF)—Rail transportation casks containing TAD canisters or Dual 

Purpose Canisters (DPCs) are assumed to be received at the Receipt Facility. The 

material handling system in the Receipt Facility will provide the capability to receive 

and inspect transportation casks, remove casks from carriers, prepare casks for 

unloading, and unload casks into a shielded transfer cask for transfer to another waste 

handling facility or into an aging overpack for transfer to an aging pad. It is assumed 

that unloaded transportation casks will be prepared for return to the National 

Transportation System in the RF. 

• Wet Handling Facility (WHF)—Loaded casks containing uncanistered CSNF 

assemblies (i.e., assemblies not loaded in TAD canisters) are assumed to be received in the 

WHF. Casks containing bare CSNF assemblies are unloaded in the WHF, and the 

CSNF assemblies are transferred to TAD canisters. It is assumed that DPCs are received 

at the Repository and cut open in the WHF to remove the CSNF assemblies inside and 

transfer them to a TAD canister. TAD canisters loaded in the WHF are then welded 

closed and transferred to a shielded transfer cask for transfer to a CRCF or an aging pad. 
DOE/RW-0591

 10 June 2008 Figure 2-2. Primary Repository Surface Facilities 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 11 July 2008 

• Canister Receipt and Closure Facility (CRCF)—The three CRCF facilities are 

assumed to receive rail transportation casks containing HLW, DOE SNF and TAD 

canisters, and shielded transfer casks from the WHF; load these canisters into waste 

packages, close the waste packages; and down-end the waste packages for transfer to the 

waste package TEV. 

• Aging Pads—The aging pads will provide space for aging and staging waste. This 

aging capability enables CSNF to be aged as necessary to meet waste package thermal 

limits and the staging capability provides a surge capacity for additional flexibility in 

waste processing operations. 

Other estimated surface facilities in the radiologically controlled area include the Central Control 

Center Facility, Heavy Equipment Maintenance Facility, and Warehouse and Non-Nuclear 

Receipt Facility. These facilities provide support to waste processing operations. 

Surface transporters are planned to be used to move TAD canisters and DPCs between and 

among the waste handling facilities and aging pads. A waste package TEV is used to transport 

the waste packages from the CRCFs and IHF to the subsurface for emplacement. 

The balance of plant area comprises the remaining general infrastructure facilities. The balance 

of plant area includes an administration building, a medical center, fire stations, a central 

warehouse, central shops, a motor pool service station, a visitor center, utility facilities, the North 

Portal Entrance Structure, a training facility, and security facilities. 

The South Portal development area and the North Construction Portal development area will be 

used to support continuing construction of the Repository, even as the North Portal area accepts 

and prepares waste for underground emplacement in the first emplacement drifts. 

2.1.2.2 Yucca Mountain Repository Subsurface Facilities 

The system plans to dispose of waste packages in dedicated drifts, supported on emplacement 

pallets, and aligned end-to-end. Plans are to build the Repository emplacement drifts in a series 

of five panels, each comprising a set of emplacement drifts, and phased to match the planned 

throughput of the surface facilities. The total subsurface emplacement area required to 

accommodate 122,100 MTHM is approximately 2,400 acres. This includes approximately 

333,346 feet of excavated emplacement drifts in five panels. About 17,450 waste packages and 

their engineered supports will be placed in these drifts. Panel 1 includes a single performance 

observation drift and eight emplacement drifts excavated to an 18-foot diameter at a 

center-to-center drift spacing of 266 feet. One of the eight emplacement drifts is used for 

performance confirmation testing. 

The emplacement drifts are planned to be 18 feet in diameter and are excavated by tunnel boring 

machines consisting of mechanical excavators equipped with a rotating cutting head that uses 

hardened disc cutters to break the rock into small chips. Ground support is planned to be 

installed immediately behind the excavator to provide structural support and worker protection. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 12 July 2008 

2.1.3 Drip Shields and Waste Packages 

The drip shields and waste packages are primary elements that are designed to complement the 

natural barriers in isolating waste from the environment (Figure 2-3). Additional engineered 

barriers include pallets and supports and drift inverts. 

• Waste Packages (also called Disposal Overpacks when referring to the TAD 

canister system)—The waste package designs assume two concentric cylinders. The 

inner cylinder is made of modified Stainless Steel Type 316. The outer cylinder is made 

of a corrosion-resistant, nickel-based alloy (Alloy 22). The Alloy 22 cylinder protects 

the internal components of the waste package, including the stainless steel inner 

cylinder, from corrosion due to contact with water. The Stainless Steel Type 316 

cylinder provides structural support for the thinner Alloy 22 cylinder. Each waste 

package is being designed to have an outer lid and an inner lid on the top of the waste 

package. The outer (closure) lid would be made of Alloy 22 and the inner lid would be 

made of Stainless Steel Type 316. The basic waste package design is the same for the 

various waste forms. However, the sizes and internal configurations vary to 

accommodate the different waste forms to include commercial SNF in TAD canisters, 

HLW, DOE SNF, and Naval SNF. 

• Drip Shields—Drip shields are assumed to be procured and installed during the last 10 

years of the monitoring period. Drip shields are designed to be installed over the waste 

packages. The drip shields divert moisture that might drip from the drift walls, as well 

as condensed water vapor, around the waste packages to the drift floor, further extending 

the long life of the waste packages. The drip shields are also being designed to protect 

the waste packages from rockfall. All drip shields are being designed to be the same 

size, allowing one design to be used with the various waste packages. 

• Pallets and Supports—Each waste package is designed to have a pallet for structural 

support. The pallet is used to support the waste package in a horizontal position within 

the emplacement drift. Pallets would be fabricated from Alloy 22 and Stainless Steel 

Type 316. 

• Drift Invert—The invert includes structures and materials at the bottom of the 

emplacement drifts that support the pallet and waste package, drift rail system, and drip 

shield and backfill, if used. It is composed of two parts: the steel invert structure and 

ballast (or fill), which consists of granular material. Following repository closure, the 

granular material in the invert will provide a layer of material below the waste packages 

that will slow the movement of radionuclides into the host rock and will provide support 

if the steel invert corrodes. 

2.1.4 Monitoring and Closure 

Information concerning the Repository and the surrounding environment is being collected and 

compiled to provide a performance confirmation baseline against which to compare what occurs 

after the Repository is built and waste is emplaced. When repository operations begin, remote 

sensors will monitor the waste packages, emplacement drifts, and surrounding rock. The 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 13 July 2008 

observed effects will be compared with the pre-emplacement repository characteristics and 

model predictions. These performance confirmation activities will continue until the Repository 

is closed and sealed. 

If a problem is detected prior to closing the Repository, remedial action or retrieval of the waste 

will be accomplished using remotely operated equipment. The NRC currently requires that the 

Repository be designed to allow for the retrieval of waste at any time up to 50 years after waste 

emplacement operations begin. Any retrieval of waste will follow, in reverse order, the same 

steps taken to emplace the waste and, for the most part, will use the same systems and equipment. 

For the purpose of this cost estimate, the cost for retrieval is not included. 

Figure 2-3. Waste Packages and Drip Shields 

After the last waste package is placed underground, the Repository can be monitored for many 

decades, perhaps even centuries. Permanently installed sensors will monitor waste packages, 

emplacement drifts, and the surrounding rock, providing the data required to confirm 

performance. It is planned that a remotely operated inspection gantry will track conditions in the 

waste emplacement drifts. For the purpose of this cost estimate, it is assumed that monitoring 

will last for 50 years after emplacement of the last waste package. Drip shields will be installed 

during the last 10 years of monitoring. 

Closure activities include sealing and backfilling all openings to the surface, dismantling the 

surface facilities, restoring the surface area as closely as possible to original conditions, 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 14 July 2008 

preparing a post closure monitoring plan, and finally, ensuring the protection of the Repository 

from unauthorized intrusion.

2.2 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REPOSITORY ASSUMPTIONS 

In addition to the assumptions in the description of the system in the previous section, the major 

Repository assumptions that affect the TSLCC are as follows: 

1. For the purposes of this report, the Yucca Mountain repository surface and subsurface 

facility operations are assumed to begin in 2017 and end when all waste has been 

emplaced in the Repository by 2073. It is assumed that the Repository will be licensed 

by the NRC and that licenses to construct the facility and to receive and possess waste 

will be obtained in a timely manner to support the assumed start of operations in 2017. 

2. The basis for the TSLCC estimate is the scope as described in the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, 

Nevada, (DOE 2007, DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D). Repository construction costs include 

preoperational testing and start up activities prior to turnover of the facilities for 

operations. 

3. Costs for design of new facilities required for the canistered approach were developed 

based on parametric evaluations of deliverables (drawings, specifications, calculations, 

etc.) and relative complexity as compared to existing facility design. 

4. Construction work for the GROA begins after receipt of the NRC CA. Work 

necessary to support requirements for the construction phase will be conducted in 

advance of the CA. This could include, for example: site safety upgrades for the 

existing Exploratory Studies Facility, sample drilling for siting of future aggregate 

borrow pits, geotechnical characterization of repository facilities, design of 

construction facilities, long-lead procurement, constructability assessments, and 

construction process development. 

5. All infrastructure activities not in the GROA that are required for the onset of 

repository construction will be completed prior to CA. 

6. The GROA design for the LA is based on receipt of approximately 90% of CSNF in 

TAD canisters, with the remainder arriving uncanistered (bare SNF in truck 

transportation casks and DPCs in rail transportation overpacks). The capacity of a 

standard TAD canister will be approximately 9 MTHM and will include either 21 

Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) or 44 Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) assemblies. 

7. HLW and DOE SNF will be accepted in accordance with the 2001 DOE EM 

Integrated Acceptance Schedule. Naval SNF will be accepted in accordance with the 

schedule in the CRD. 

8. The 57 year emplacement period is followed by 50 years of monitoring with drift 

ventilation. A 10-year period is anticipated to perform closure operations. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 15 July 2008 

9 Site rail access will be available to meet the receipt ramp-up rate consistent with 

Tables 3-1 through 3-3 of this document. 

10. Construction, testing and monitoring, and infrastructure support will be available for 

science activities related to the licensing review and Performance Confirmation 

program, as well as the long-term testing and monitoring program. This support will 

be in compliance with applicable QA procedures. 

11. The provision of oversight funding to Affected Units of Local Government (AULG) 

will continue throughout repository operations per the NWPA Section 116(c). 

12. PETT will continue throughout repository operations per the NWPA Section 116(c). 

13. Impact assistance will be provided, if required, to the State of Nevada and any AULG 

as stated in the NWPA Section 116(c). 

14. Monitoring will take place following the end of emplacement activities. Closure and 

decommissioning activities will take approximately ten years and will follow 

monitoring. Annual costs during the monitoring period are significantly lower than 

during the emplacement period. 

2.3 REPOSITORY COSTS 

Major cost drivers for the Repository cost estimate include the cost of surface facility 

construction, repository facility operations, drip shields and waste package costs. The major 

repository surface facilities included in this estimate are described in Section 2.1.2.1. For the 

purpose of this analysis, they are assumed to process wastes as follows: 

• Initial Handling Facility—Naval SNF and HLW canister receipt and waste package 

loading/closure; 

• Wet Handling Facility—uncanistered commercial SNF receipt and TAD canister 

loading/closure; 

• Canister Receipt and Closure Facility 1—HLW, DOE SNF and TAD canister receipt 

and waste package loading/closure; 

• Canister Receipt and Closure Facility 2—TAD canister receipt and waste package 

loading/closure; 

• Canister Receipt and Closure Facility 3—TAD canister receipt and waste package 

loading/closure; and 

• Receipt Facility—Receive rail transportation casks with TAD canister or DPC and 

transfer to aging pads or another waste handling facility. 

In addition to these facilities, the estimate also includes costs for site infrastructure and balance 

of plant facilities, including offsite access roads, onsite and offsite utilities, equipment 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 16 July 2008 

maintenance facilities, a central control center and administration building, security and 

emergency (fire, rescue and medical) facilities and systems, and aging pads to allow for proper 

cooling of waste prior to emplacement. The Repository estimate includes costs for underground 

emplacement panels for disposal of waste. 

For the purposes of the TSLCC estimate, the Repository cost estimate is comprised of integrated 

costs from five time phases with estimated periods to include: 

• Development & Evaluation (1983 – 2002) 

• Engineering Procurement & Construction (2003 – 2053) 

• Emplacement Operations (2017 – 2073) 

• Monitoring (2074 – 2123) 

• Closure (2124 – 2133) 

A summary of Repository costs broken out by major cost components is provided in Table 2-1 

below. 

Table 2-1. Repository Costs by Phase (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Development & Evaluation (1983 – 2002) 8,330 0 8,330 

Engineering, Procurement & Construction (2003 – 

2053) 1,580 16,550 18,130 

Emplacement Operations (2017 – 2073) 0 26,730 26,730 

Monitoring (2074 – 2123) 0 10,150 10,150 

Closure (2124 – 2133) 0 1,390 1,390 

Total 9,910 54,820 64,730 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 

2.3.1 Repository Development & Evaluation 

Repository development and evaluation costs were incurred for activities associated with 

evaluating multiple geologic repository candidate sites in the 1980s and in conceptual design and 

site characterization activities in the 1990s through the approval by Congress of the Yucca 

Mountain Repository Site Recommendation in 2002. During the 1980s, the Program evaluated 

nine sites in six states for their suitability for a repository, including sites in basalt rock 

formations in the Pacific Northwest and salt dome formations in the West and South. Activities 

during this time included establishing field offices to conduct technical evaluations, conducting 

field work, drilling test boreholes to gather samples, and developing repository conceptual 

designs. 

During the 1990s, following passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 

through which Congress directed the federal government to focus on Yucca Mountain, the 

Department conducted in depth site characterization activities of Yucca Mountain to determine 

its suitability for a geologic repository. This work included the boring of the Exploratory Studies 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 17 July 2008 

Facility, a five mile long tunnel through Yucca Mountain, in which scientific studies could be 

conducted on the long-term performance of the repository environment. An additional 1.7 mile 

tunnel was bored to study the rock at the Repository level. Work also included conceptual 

design of, and materials testing on, spent fuel waste packages and drip shields. The 

Development and Evaluation phase culminated in the Presidential recommendation of Yucca 

Mountain as the site for a geologic repository and the approval of that recommendation by 

Congress in 2002. Details of costs during this period are included in Table 2-2 below. 

Table 2-2. Repository Development & Evaluation Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(1983 – 2002) 

Development & Evaluation at Yucca Mountain 6,270 

Other Repository Development & Evaluation 2,060 

Total 8,330 

NOTE: Other Repository Development & Evaluation includes other First Repository 

Sites and Second Repository Sites. 

2.3.2 Repository Engineering, Procurement, and Construction 

The Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) phase began in 2003, following the 

approval of the Site Recommendation by Congress. It includes all activities necessary to design, 

license, and construct the geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Licensing activities (license 

application preparation and interactions with the NRC), surface facility construction 

(infrastructure, waste handling buildings, and balance of plant), and subsurface construction 

(emplacement drifts) are the major cost categories during this phase. Procurement of disposal 

waste packages (or TAD disposal overpacks) are primarily included as part of the repository 

operations estimate, with only the initial procurements included in the engineering, procurement 

and construction estimate. Table 2-3 details the costs for the EPC phase. 

Table 2-3. Repository Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(2003 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2053) 

Total Costs 

(2003 – 2053) 

Licensing 670 1,660 2,340 

Surface & Subsurface Facilities 880 14,670 15,550 

Waste Package & Drip Shield Fabrication 20 220 240 

Performance Confirmation 0 0 0 

Regulatory, Infrastructure, & Management Support 0 0 0 

Total 1,580 16,550 18,130 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 18 July 2008 

2.3.3 Repository Emplacement Operations 

For the purposes of this report, emplacement operations are assumed to extend through 2073. 

The primary cost drivers during this phase are operations of the surface facilities and the 

fabrication of approximately 17,450 waste packages. Activities at the surface facilities will 

include waste receipt and unloading, placement of waste canisters in disposal overpacks, and 

limited surface aging activities for thermal blending purposes. Performance confirmation, site 

management, and safeguards and security activities will also take place during this period. Table 

2-4 details the costs for the emplacement operations phase. 

Table 2-4. Repository Operations Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Future Costs 

(2017 – 2073) 

Licensing 0 

Surface & Subsurface Facilities 9,580 

Waste Package & Drip Shield Fabrication 12,580 

Performance Confirmation 1,680 

Regulatory, Infrastructure, and Management Support 2,890 

Total 26,730 

NOTE: Column totals may not add due to rounding. 

2.3.4 Repository Monitoring 

The Repository monitoring phase is assumed to cover the period from 2074 through 2123 and 

includes activities to gather and analyze data on repository performance as well as perform 

maintenance activities on the facilities. Costs for staffing, spare parts and consumable supplies, 

utilities, and ventilation of the repository are included. Drip shields are emplaced during the last 

10 years of this phase. Table 2-5 details the costs for the monitoring phase. 

Table 2-5. Repository Monitoring Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Future Costs 

(2074 – 2123) 

Licensing 0 

Surface & Subsurface Facilities 1,030 

Waste Package & Drip Shield Fabrication 7,630 

Performance Confirmation 1,040 

Regulatory, Infrastructure, and Management Support 440 

Total 10,150 

NOTE: Column totals may not add due to rounding. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 19 July 2008 

2.3.5 Repository Closure 

The Repository closure phase covers the last ten years of repository operations, and is assumed 

for the purposes of this report to be from 2124 through 2133. It includes costs to decontaminate 

and decommission surface facilities, backfill shafts and ramps, permanently seal the repository, 

and construct monuments. Table 2-6 details the costs for the closure phase. 

Table 2-6. Repository Closure Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Future Costs 

(2124 – 2133) 

Licensing 0 

Surface & Subsurface Facilities 970 

Waste Package & Drip Shield Fabrication 0 

Performance Confirmation 300 

Regulatory, Infrastructure, and Management Support 120 

Total 1,390 

NOTE: Column totals may not add due to rounding. 

3. TRANSPORTATION 

3.1 TRANSPORTATION SCOPE 

The mission of the Transportation Program is to develop and manage a safe, secure, and efficient 

Transportation System for shipping SNF and HLW from specified locations throughout the 

United States to the Repository. The Transportation System focuses on developing 

transportation assets, operational strategies, and policies that will support shipment training 

exercises and shipments. The OCRWM is collaborating with stakeholders and interested parties 

as it develops this Transportation System. The Transportation System consists of two capital 

projects – the National Transportation Project and the Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project. The 

Transportation System estimate consists of the technical scope, schedule and cost to execute both 

of these projects. 

The Department is responsible for transporting all HLW and SNF (except Naval SNF) to the 

Repository via a national transportation system and a regional transportation system in Nevada. 

The Navy is responsible for the transportation of Naval SNF to the Repository. Pursuant to a 

Record of Decision in April 2004, the Department selected “mostly rail” as its preferred mode of 

transportation to the Repository. 

3.2 TRANSPORTATION ASSUMPTIONS 

For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the Department will purchase equipment, including 

TAD canisters and any necessary DPC transportation overpacks, casks, and rolling stock and 

will contract out for planning, acquisition, and operations services.1

 For this analysis, the 

 

1

 In addition, it is assumed that locomotives will be leased. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 20 July 2008 

transportation infrastructure will include the Cask Maintenance Facility (CMF), Rail Equipment 

Maintenance Yard (REMY), and the Transportation Operations Center that will conduct 

maintenance activities on equipment and coordinate transportation logistics. It is assumed the 

NWPA Section 180(c) planning and training grants to state and local governments for 

emergency preparedness and response will be awarded three to five years prior to the start of 

operations and will continue during the transportation operations period. 

Additional major Transportation assumptions used to develop the TSLCC are as follows: 

1. For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that CSNF and DOE SNF and HLW 

pickup is to begin in 2017, using the Oldest Fuel First acceptance priority in the 

Standard Contract for CSNF acceptance. 

2. Tables 3-1 through 3-3 show the assumed nominal acceptance rates for CSNF and 

DOE SNF and HLW, respectively. 

3. CSNF acceptance rates are based on the CRD. 

Table 3-1. Assumed Acceptance Rates for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel

Calendar Year Acceptance 

(MTHM/calendar year) 

2017 400 

2018 600 

2019 1,200 

2020 2,000 

2021 3,000 

2022 3,000 

2023 3,000 

2024 3,000 

2025 3,000 

2026 – 2055 3,000 each year 

2056 – 2063 Total of 877* 

NOTE: Because of heat restrictions in shipping wastes, it has been estimated that 

the last shipment cannot be made until 2063. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 21 July 2008 

Table 3-2. Assumed Acceptance Rates for DOE Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Year DOE SNF (Canisters) Naval SNF (Canisters) 

2017 72 10 

2018 45 15 

2019 81 18 

2020 126 21 

2021 63 24 

2022 54 24 

2023 90 24 

2024 81 24 

2025 90 24 

2026 108 24 

2027 126 24 

2028 135 24 

2029 162 24 

2030 153 24 

2031 108 24 

2032 90 24 

2033 171 24 

2034 171 24 

2035 137 — 

2036 90 — 

2037 86 — 

2038 50 — 

2039 66 — 

2040 88 — 

2041 87 — 

2042 61 — 

2043 48 — 

2044 52 — 

2045 48 — 

2046 49 — 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 22 July 2008 

Table 3-3. Assumed Acceptance Rates for High-Level Radioactive Waste

Year Acceptance 

(Canisters) 

2017 195 

2018 380 

2019 380 

2020 380 

2021 380 

2022 385 

2023 380 

2024 380 

2025 425 

2026 650 

2027 650 

2028 650 

2029 695 

2030 710 

2031 740 

2032 800 

2033 830 

2034 825 

2035 825 

2036 792 

2037 745 

2038 745 

2039 745 

2040 740 

2041 745 

2042 746 

2043 650 

2044 650 

2045 645 

2046 471 

2047 445 

2048 445 

2049 443 

4. For cost estimating purposes, the Department is basing this TSLCC estimate on rail 

alignments within the Caliente Corridor, although the Department has not yet 

completed its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and has not yet 

made a decision whether to utilize the Caliente or the Mina Corridor. 

5. The preferred mode of transportation will be mostly rail, using dedicated trains. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 23 July 2008 

6. Contingency and management reserve for Transportation were estimated at 15% to 

30%. 

7. Rail transportation of SNF and HLW will be performed by dedicated trains with up to 

five casks per train for DOE waste and three casks per train for commercial waste. 

Buffer cars will be provided as necessary to meet specific loading restrictions and a 

security escort car will complete the consist (i.e., locomotive, buffer car, cask cars, 

buffer car, and escort car). 

8. Locomotives will be leased. 

9. The TSLCC estimate includes the capital costs associated with developing and 

fabricating the rail cars. 

10. Naval Reactors is responsible for procurement of its own rolling stock and casks and 

for the transport of Naval SNF to the Repository. These costs are not included in the 

TSLCC estimate. 

11. The Navy will pay 1/3 of the cost of the design, fabrication, and testing of the 

prototype escort car and the Department will pay 2/3 of the cost. The cost sharing for 

development reflects the number of escort cars each program will ultimately need. 

OCRWM’s share of costs is included in this estimate. 

12. All cask and basic rolling stock maintenance facilities are assumed to be located at 

Yucca Mountain outside the GROA, and will be constructed by the Department. 

13. Institutional funding will support resolution of key issues with states, tribes and 

carriers and funding of cooperative agreement groups. It is assumed that institutional 

funding and Section 180(c) funding will continue throughout the period of 

transportation operations. 

14. The TSLCC estimate includes development of contingency plans for transportation to 

assure the highest level of security and safety, while mitigating impacts on shipping 

schedules and GROA receipt operations. 

3.3 TRANSPORTATION COSTS 

Major cost drivers for the Transportation system element include the purchase of casks and TAD 

canisters, construction of the rail line, and transportation system support and operations. A 

summary of the transportation cost estimate is included in Table 3-4. This estimate includes 

Transportation Development & Evaluation costs through 2002. It also includes historical and 

future costs for the National Transportation and Nevada Rail Infrastructure Projects. The 

estimate assumes that TAD canisters will be purchased by the Department and delivered to 

commercial waste sites for loading and then transported to the Repository. Some TAD canisters 

will be delivered to the Repository for loading of bare fuel in preparation for disposal. Major 

cost drivers for construction of the branch rail line through Nevada include earthwork (e.g., 

clearing and grading, cut and fill of terrain) and the purchase and laying of the track itself. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 24 July 2008 

Transportation system operations include conducting shipments from the DOE facilities and 

utilities to the Repository and operation of maintenance facilities for casks and rolling stock. 

Table 3-4. Transportation Cost Summary (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2073) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2073) 

Development & Evaluation (1983 – 2002) 640 0 640 

National Transportation Project (2003 – 2073) 100 16,830 16,930 

Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project (2003 – 2017) 40 2,650 2,690 

Transportation Total 780 19,480 20,250 

 NOTES: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. Future costs for the Nevada Rail Infrastructure 

Project extend through 2017. 

3.3.1 National Transportation Project 

The National Transportation Project scope includes: the acquisition of rail and truck cask 

systems; design, acquisition, manufacture, testing and acceptance of rolling stock; national 

institutional activities, including implementation of Section 180(c) provisions; systems 

engineering and operations development; acquisition of physical security systems; and project 

management. In addition, the acquisition cost of TAD canisters (excluding the initial 35 

canisters to support IOC) is accounted for under the National Transportation Project. 

The Department is developing the TAD canister-based system to simplify and standardize 

operations throughout the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System (CRWMS). The 

TAD canister will be the key interface component that facilitates various TAD system functions. 

Separate overpacks will be needed for transportation, aging, and disposal. The transportation 

overpack is used when transporting fuel from the utilities to Yucca Mountain. The aging 

overpack is used when fuel is sent to the Surface Aging Facility at the Repository. The disposal 

overpack (waste package) is used when a TAD canister is prepared for final emplacement. As 

such, all components of a TAD canister-based system will comply with the regulatory 

requirements of Titles 10 CFR Part 71, 10 CFR Part 72, and 10 CFR Part 63, as applicable. 

TAD canisters are loaded with CSNF and sealed at the utility reactor sites. The Department will 

take title and deliver the loaded TAD canisters to the Repository using a transportation overpack. 

At the Repository, a TAD canister may also be handled using a shielded transfer cask or aged in 

an aging overpack, and will be disposed of in a waste package. These three Repository functions 

will be covered by the Repository license granted under 10 CFR Part 63. 

Storage and maintenance of the entire transportation fleet are planned to be performed at two 

locations. The CMF will service and maintain the transportation cask fleet. A physical location 

for the CMF has not been designated, but for the purpose of this analysis it is assumed to be 

located on the repository site adjacent to the GROA. For rail shipments, the REMY will serve as 

the physical location where rail cars are separated, so that only the cask cars are delivered to the 

Repository. The REMY could provide temporary storage of the entire rolling stock fleet. The 

REMY will be located along the Nevada Rail Line near the Repository. These two maintenance 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 25 July 2008 

facility designs supersede the previous one Fleet Management Facility design to allow for 

enhanced operational efficiency. 

Long lead times may be required between the initial procurement of the transportation capital 

assets, including casks, TAD canisters, and rolling stock, and the actual delivery of such items. 

For estimating purposes, casks and rolling stock are assumed to be procured two to three years 

before their needed operations date. 

The National Transportation Project encompasses the acquisition of the necessary capital assets 

to safely transport the SNF and HLW from commercial and DOE sites to the Repository, with 

shipping operations commencing in 2017. The shipping operations phase concludes in 2063 

when all SNF and HLW have been transported to the Repository. These transportation 

operations will be handled mostly by rail, using dedicated trains. Transportation costs are 

assumed to continue through 2073, while new TAD canisters are acquired and sent to Yucca 

Mountain. The National Transportation Project costs are summarized in Table 3-5 below. 

Table 3-5. National Transportation Project Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(2003 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2073) 

Total Costs 

(2003 – 2073) 

National Transportation Project 100 16,830 16,930 

Total 100 16,830 16,930 

NOTE: Row totals may not add due to rounding. 

The National Transportation Project estimate includes costs for the acquisition of DOE SNF and 

HLW casks, CSNF casks, and BWR and PWR TAD canisters; the acquisition of rolling stock 

including escort, cask, and buffer cars; and the design and construction of support and 

maintenance facilities, including the Transportation Operations Center, CMF, and REMY. Costs 

for System Support and Operations Execution are also accounted for within the National 

Transportation Project estimate. 

System Support encompasses the costs related to crosscutting elements necessary to support the 

Transportation System such as System Design, Operations Systems Development, Institutional 

Planning, Stakeholder Relations, 180(c) Development/Funding, Safeguards and Security and 

Emergency Response, and Program Management. Operations Execution includes the costs for 

shipping the SNF and HLW from the waste generator sites to the Repository, the transportation 

operations contractor, Nevada Rail operations and maintenance, and cask and rolling stock 

maintenance. 

The National Transportation Project future costs are summarized in Table 3-6 below. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 26 July 2008 

Table 3-6. National Transportation Project Future Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2073) 

National Transportation Project — 

Cask Systems 10,870 

Rolling Stock 280 

Support/Maintenance Facilities 100 

System Support 2,450 

Operations Execution 3,120 

Total 16,830 

NOTE: Column totals may not add due to rounding. 

The cask and rolling stock fleet size for the National Transportation Project, in terms of 

quantities and unit costs are summarized in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 below. 

Table 3-7. Transportation Cask Fleet

Cask Type 

Quantity 

(each) 

Unit Cost 

(in Millions 

of 2007$) 

DOE Casks — — 

HLW Rail 25 4.5 

SNF Rail 5 4.5 

Commercial SNF Casks — — 

Truck Casks 30 4.4 

Transportation Overpacks 42 4.5 

BWR TAD Canisters 4,983 0.8 

PWR TAD Canisters 7,965 0.7 

Medium/Small Casks 31 4.5 

NOTE: The costs for the first 22 BWR TAD Canisters and 13 PWR TAD Canisters 

are included in the Waste Management estimate under the Balance of 

Program costs. 

Table 3-8. Transportation Rolling Stock Fleet

Rolling Stock Type 

Quantity 

(each) 

Unit Cost 

(in Millions 

of 2007$) 

Rolling Stock — — 

Escort Car 18 3.7 

Cask Car 100 0.7 

Buffer Car 37 0.5 

NOTE: Unit costs reflect Rolling Stock acquisition costs only and do not include 

design, testing and inspection costs. In addition, one prototype for each 

rolling stock car type will be fabricated. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 27 July 2008 

3.3.2 Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project 

The Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project scope provides for the design and construction of a new 

branch rail line and associated support facilities within the State of Nevada. It includes the 

development of a Nevada Rail Infrastructure system interface from the National Transportation 

System to the Repository. It also encompasses the design, acquisition of materials and 

equipment, construction, testing, and certification of a Nevada rail line for the transportation of 

SNF and HLW. Work scope includes National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, land 

acquisition, and supporting field investigations and analyses. 

The Caliente Corridor is the current planning basis for budget projections for the Nevada rail 

line, although the Department currently is in the process of considering potential alternative 

alignments within both the Caliente and Mina Corridors. For this cost estimate, it is assumed 

that the rail line will be completed by 2014 to facilitate Repository construction. 

The rail line will be designed, constructed, tested and certified in accordance with applicable 

DOE requirements and federal regulations. 

The rail line designs include mainly a single track with a number of sidings to facilitate passing 

of opposing movements and storage of maintenance and train equipment. The rail line design 

includes the following: 

• Numerous structures to traverse washes, as well as cuts and fills to minimize grades 

encountered along the alignment; 

• Train control systems to assure train separation; 

• Grade crossing equipment and traffic control devices to warn highway traffic of the 

passage of trains; 

• A right of way access road for railroad construction and maintenance along the majority 

of the track; and 

• Communications equipment to supervise, control and transmit the status of various 

equipment along the alignment, as well as to provide basic communications with the 

trains and maintenance personnel. 

The rail line will be designed to provide transfer to and from the connecting railroad and to and 

from the Yucca Mountain site. It is assumed that connections to the CMF and REMY and other 

supporting facilities will be incorporated, as necessary. The rail line must support all train 

movements required in the operations plan including the capability to dispatch empty casks to 

the utilities and DOE sites and deliver loaded casks to the Repository. The rail line connection is 

planned to support operational testing of the railcar fleet; training of operating and maintenance 

personnel; and testing of interfaces with the Repository site and the connecting railroad in time 

for the planned operational startup date. 

For the cost estimate, it is assumed that the construction for the Nevada Rail Infrastructure 

Project begins in 2009 and concludes when the Nevada Rail Line (NRL) is placed in service, 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 28 July 2008 

assumed to be in 2014. Operations and maintenance start-up costs extend through the beginning 

of repository operations. These planned dates are consistent with achieving initial repository 

operations in 2017. The TSLCC Nevada Rail Infrastructure estimate is summarized in Table 3-9 

below. 

Table 3-9. Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical Costs 

(2003 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2017) 

Total Costs 

(2003 – 2017) 

Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project 40 2,650 2,690 

Total 40 2,650 2,690 

NOTE: Row totals may not add due to rounding. 

The NRL is the main cost component within the TSLCC Nevada Rail Infrastructure estimate. 

The NRL element includes the development; design; construction, management, and operations; 

and maintenance planning for the NRL and its associated bridges and drainage structures. 

Systems costs, such as signals and communications, as well as testing and certification costs are 

also included. 

Other cost elements within Nevada Rail Infrastructure estimate are the EIS, Design Supporting 

Field Investigations, and Rail Support Facilities. The EIS costs include NEPA and regulatory 

compliance costs. The Design Supporting Field Investigations element accounts for the costs of 

evaluations supporting rail design, such as aerial mapping, geotechnical investigations, hydraulic 

analyses, and route optimization studies. The Rail Support Facilities includes the design and 

construction costs for ancillary facilities, such as the Union Pacific Railroad Interchange Yard, 

NRL Staging Yard, REMY, Maintenance of Way Facilities, and Train Control Center. 

The Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project future costs are summarized in Table 3-10 below. 

Table 3-10. Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project Future Costs (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2017) 

Nevada Rail Infrastructure Project — 

Nevada Rail Line 2,400 

Environmental Impact Statement 30 

Design Supporting Field Investigations 50 

Rail Support Facilities 180 

Total 2,650 

NOTE: Column totals may not add due to rounding. 

4. BALANCE OF PROGRAM 

4.1 BALANCE OF PROGRAM SCOPE 

The cost component for the Balance of the Program encompasses areas such as: QA; Waste 

Management; Program Management; Benefits, PETT, Outreach, and Institutional; and costs 

outside the OCRWM budget funded from the NWF. A brief description of each of the areas is 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 29 July 2008 

provided below. The cost estimate for the years to construction reflects assumptions that are 

consistent with the conceptual design cost estimates and the budget projections through 2023. 

During construction, operations, monitoring and decommissioning, the Balance of Program 

estimates are expected to fluctuate according to the activities under way at that phase of the 

Program. Future estimates will improve upon the fidelity of the current estimates as more detail 

is developed. 

4.1.1 Quality Assurance 

The QA estimate includes funds for independent contractor staff dedicated to ensuring that the 

OCRWM Program and its contractors implement requirements mandated by the NRC for nuclear 

QA. Applicable tasks include OCRWM program activities related to public radiological health, 

safety and waste isolation. Activities associated with QA are performed independent of the 

organizational functions associated with work products, and are directly related to the 

acceptability of the technical products and services provided by the performing organization. 

Included in this element are cost estimates for surveillance and audits to verify the quality of 

work, identification of conditions adverse to quality, and corrective action oversight. Near-term 

costs are assumed to be at current budget planning levels during the initial construction phase 

through FY2053. 

Costs for the operations phase after the conclusion of surface construction are somewhat lower to 

reflect ongoing oversight of repository activities. Costs during the monitoring phase are reduced 

to reflect the low level of activity at the repository during this period. When activities for 

decommissioning increase, costs for QA rise accordingly. 

4.1.2 Waste Management 

The Waste Management estimate includes costs for staff to conduct all activities necessary to 

plan for, integrate, and manage the administrative aspects of accepting waste from utility sites 

and DOE sites. This includes maintenance of the Standard Contract with utilities governing the 

acceptance of waste by the Department, planning and negotiation with other governmental 

entities regarding the acceptance of defense wastes, and establishment of high-level Program 

requirements and configuration control documents that address the rates and timing of the 

handling of wastes. Costs are also included to conduct the annual fee adequacy assessment. 

Waste Management costs are anticipated to continue through the end of acceptance and 

transportation activities. 

Near-term Waste Management costs also support the design and licensing of the TAD 

canister-based system by commercial vendors, which includes the cost of developing and issuing 

a performance specification for the TAD canister and support to vendors to develop licensable 

system designs. Also included in this area is the cost to procure the first 35 TAD canisters to be 

used by the Department in accepting SNF from utilities. 

4.1.3 Program Management 

The cost estimate for program management includes the administrative costs associated with 

implementing the Program. This includes the human resources and information technology 

functions currently managed by the OCRWM Office of Government Services, as well as the 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 30 July 2008 

Program Direction budget category within which all Program federal salaries and other 

administrative costs are included. Integrated program costs for safeguards and security and the 

emergency management program are also contained in this estimate. The federal salary estimate 

includes the direct and overhead costs of Federal staff working on the program. Federal staffing 

levels vary with the overall level of costs over the Program’s phases. In addition, general 

administrative costs such as building maintenance, computer equipment, communications, 

utilities, computer/video support, training, printing and graphics, photocopying, postage, and 

supplies are included in this estimate. Costs of management and technical support services 

contractors are also included in this element. 

4.1.4 Benefits, Payments Equal to Taxes, Outreach, and Institutional 

The Benefits, PETT, Outreach, and Institutional estimate includes funding to external parties as 

prescribed by the NWPA. The NWPA authorized the Secretary of Energy to grant to affected 

states and units of local government an amount each fiscal year equal to the amount that they 

would receive if authorized to tax DOE activities at the same rate as commercial activities. 

States and units of local government are entitled to PETT for real property and industrial 

activities, including site characterization activities and development and operation of a potential 

repository. The NWPA authorizes the Secretary to enter into benefit agreements with the State 

of Nevada or affected Indian tribes pertaining to a potential repository for the acceptance of 

HLW or SNF. The NWPA states that the State or Indian tribe in which the potential repository 

is located is eligible to receive annual payments through decommissioning of the Repository. 

4.1.5 Other Agencies 

Those costs outside of the OCRWM budget funded from the NWF are included in the TSLCC 

analysis. These costs include NRC costs, NWTRB costs, and costs for the no longer active 

Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator. 

NRC costs cover that agency’s operating costs for regulatory oversight of the Yucca Mountain 

Project. NRC funding is assumed to be paid through operations and again at decommissioning. 

Funds for NRC activities that support the Program are appropriated separately by Congress as 

part of the NRC budget rather than the Department’s budget. The costs for the NWTRB cover 

the formation and operation of an independent establishment in the Executive Branch of 

government. The Board, consisting of 11 members appointed by the President, evaluates the 

technical and scientific validity of the activities undertaken by OCRWM. The NWTRB’s 

activities began in 1990 and are assumed for the purposes of this report to cease one year after 

receipt of the first waste in 2017. The costs for the Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator 

covered the formation and operation of an independent establishment within the Executive 

Branch of government. The Negotiator attempted to find a state or Indian tribe willing to host an 

interim storage facility at a technically qualified site. The Negotiator’s activities began in 1990 

and were terminated in 1995.
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 31 July 2008 

4.2 BALANCE OF PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS 

The major Balance of Program assumptions that affect the TSLCC are as follows: 

1. Program Direction costs are included in the Program Management estimate. Program 

Direction costs include salaries and benefits for Federal employees and costs for 

technical support service contractors. It is assumed that the Program does not use 

support service contractors after the start of operations. 

2. Federal staffing levels are expected to increase through the construction and initial 

operations period and then gradually decline through the rest of the operations period 

to account for efficiencies in operations and oversight during this period. It is also 

assumed that the Program employees are reduced significantly during the 50-year 

monitoring period and staffing levels are then increased to oversee closure and 

decommissioning activities. 

3. Some of the costs for PETT, Financial and Technical Assistance and funding for other 

agencies (U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and others) and 

funding for oversight activities by the state and local governments are initially 

included in the Yucca Mountain Project cost estimate through 2023. The remaining 

costs for these areas are included in the Balance of Program estimate. 

4. Current PETT costs are based on a negotiated amount between the Department, the 

State of Nevada and local governments. It is assumed that PETT costs will increase 

during the construction period to reflect expenditures at Yucca Mountain, then will 

level off at a flat rate throughout the operations period. 

5. As stated in the NWPA, the State or Indian tribe in which the potential repository is 

located is eligible to receive annual payments through the decommissioning of the 

repository. 

6. NWPA Section 180(c) benefits payments for transportation corridor states are 

included in the Transportation Institutional estimate. 

7. It is assumed that the NRC will be the regulator for the Yucca Mountain Repository 

throughout its lifecycle and that future associated NWF costs will be consistent with 

NRC budget estimates and reflect varied staffing levels. As with the Department’s 

Program staffing, NRC staffing is assumed to fluctuate based on the level and type of 

ongoing activity at the Repository. 

8. The NWTRB is assumed to be funded through the first year after the beginning of 

waste receipt, at a level of approximately $3 million per year. 

9. Costs for the initial purchase of 35 TADs are included in the Waste Management cost 

estimate under this element. For the purposes of the report, it is assumed that costs for 

these TADs will be incurred between FY2015 and FY2017 in order to support initial 

Transportation and Repository operations. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 32 July 2008 

4.3 BALANCE OF PROGRAM COSTS 

This Balance of Program estimate includes Development & Evaluation costs through 2002. It 

also includes historical (2003 – 2006) and future (2007 – 2133) costs for Quality Assurance; 

Waste Management; Program Management; Benefits, PETT, Outreach and Institutional; and 

Other Agencies. Major cost drivers for the Balance of Program estimate are PETT, benefits, and 

financial assistance to be paid to state and local entities over the life of the Program. A summary 

of program costs is included in Table 4-1 below. 

Table 4-1. Balance of Program Cost Summary (in Millions of 2007$)

Cost Element 

Historical 

(1983 – 2006) 

Future Costs 

(2007 – 2133) 

Total Costs 

(1983 – 2133) 

Development & Evaluation (1983 – 2002) 2,300 0 2,300 

Quality Assurance (2003 – 2133) 60 670 730 

Waste Management (2003 – 2133) 30 330 360 

Program Management (2003 – 2133) 270 3,020 3,280 

Benefits, PETT, Outreach and Institutional (2003 – 

2133) 0 3,150 3,150 

Other Agencies (2003 – 2133) 200 1,170 1,370 

Total 2,860 8,340 11,200 

NOTE: Row and column totals may not add due to rounding. 

5. COMMERCIAL/DEFENSE COST SHARE ALLOCATION 

The CRWMS is funded on a full-cost recovery basis, with waste generators paying their 

respective disposal costs. Allocation of costs between commercial and defense waste generators 

are recalculated when the TSLCC is reestimated and the percentage shares are applied to both 

historical and future costs. Cost allocation is based on the methodology published in the August 

20, 1987, Federal Register Notice (52 FR 31508). In accordance with that methodology, the 

costs of activities related to the disposal of a specific type of waste, whether civilian or 

government-managed, are assigned to that waste generator. Remaining Program costs are then 

shared in the same proportion as assigned direct and common variable costs. This prevents 

cross-subsidization between waste generators and ensures that each bears the full cost of disposal 

of its wastes. 

Each cost account (line item) in the TSLCC is assigned to one of three cost-sharing categories. 

Costs in each category are then assigned to the appropriate waste generator. Cost accounts are 

grouped into the following categories: 

1. Assignable direct costs are incurred solely for the disposal of DOE SNF and HLW or 

of commercial SNF and HLW. One hundred percent of the costs in directly assignable 

categories are allocated to the appropriate waste generator. 

2. Assignable common variable costs are allocated to civilian and government purchasers 

by applying various cost sharing factors, such as piece count and areal dispersion, to 

the specific cost accounts. Sharing costs by a piece-count factor is based on the 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 33 July 2008 

number of waste packages emplaced, number of waste shipments, etc. Sharing costs 

by areal dispersion is based on the repository disposal area required for 

government-managed or civilian waste divided by the total disposal area. Sharing 

factors vary depending on the basis used for cost sharing. 

3. All costs that cannot be included in one of the previous categories are called common 

unassigned costs. Unassigned costs are allocated in the same percentage as total 

assigned costs. Using this TSLCC as an example, because 19.6% of total assigned 

costs were allocated to defense, 19.6% of unassigned costs were also allocated to 

defense. 

The allocation of estimated costs and percentages to civilian and government purchasers is 

shown on Table 5-1. Table 5-2 shows detailed cost share allocations and provides insight into 

how the overall percentages and dollar amounts are derived. 

Table 5-1. Commercial and Defense Shares (in Billions of 2007$)

Entity Responsible Percentage Total Life Cycle Costs 

Commercial – Nuclear Waste Fund 80.4% 77.38 

Defense – Annual Appropriations 19.6% 18.80 

TOTAL TSLCC 100% 96.18 

Table 5-2. Detailed Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Cost Share Allocations (in Millions of 

2007$) 

Cost Share Allocation 

Category GovernmentManaged Nuclear 

Material 

Civilian Total 

Repository 14,130 50,610 64,740 

Assigned 10,410 35,310 45,720 

Unassigned 3,720 15,300 19,020 

Allocation Percent 21.8% 78.2% 100% 

Transportation 2,490 17,800 20,290 

Assigned 2,280 16,940 19,220 

Unassigned 210 860 1,070 

Allocation Percent 12.3% 87.7% 100% 

Balance of Program – Unassigned 2,180 8,970 11,150 

Allocation Percent 19.6% 80.4% 100% 

Total 18,800 77,380 96,180 

Aggregate Allocation Percent 19.6% 80.4% 100% 

NOTE: Totals may not add or compare with other totals due to independent rounding. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 34 July 2008 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
DOE/RW-0591 July 2008 

APPENDIX A 

COMPARISON WITH 2001 TOTAL SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE COST 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 July 2008 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 A-1 July 2008 

A1. COMPARISON WITH 2001 TOTAL SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE COST 

This appendix provides a comparison of the results of the current TSLCC estimate with the 2001 

TSLCC estimate. All estimates are in constant 2000 dollars to remove the effects of inflation. 

The current estimate of $79.4 Billion, in constant 2000 dollars, compares with the 2001 TSLCC 

estimate of $57.5 Billion, in constant 2000 dollars. Table A-1 provides a comparison of the 2001 

TSLCC with the 2007 TSLCC. Table A-2 provides a summary comparison of the assumptions 

between the 2001 and 2007 TSLCC estimates. 

Table A-1. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 TSLCC Costs (in Millions of 2000$) 

Cost Element 2001 TSLCC 2007 TSLCC Variance % Variance 

Repository Costs 42,880 53,390 10,510 25% 

Licensing 1,290 1,930 640 50% 

Development & Evaluation 0 0 0 — 

Engineering, Procurement, Construction 1,290 1,930 640 50% 

Operations 0 0 0 — 

Monitoring 0 0 0 — 

Closure 0 0 0 — 

Surface & Subsurface Facilities 16,830 22,380 5,550 33% 

Development & Evaluation 0 0 0 — 

Engineering, Procurement, Construction 3,630 12,830 9,200 253% 

Operations 9,630 7,900 −1,730 −18% 

Monitoring 2,890 850 −2,040 −71% 

Closure 680 800 120 18% 

Waste Packages & Drip Shields 13,240 16,870 3,630 27% 

Development & Evaluation 0 0 0 — 

Engineering, Procurement, Construction 200 200 0 0% 

Operations 8,270 10,380 2,110 26% 

Monitoring 1,550 6,290 4,740 306% 

Closure 3,220 0 −3,220 −100% 

Performance Confirmation 2,060 2,490 430 21% 

Development & Evaluation 0 0 0 — 

Engineering, Procurement, Construction 330 0 −330 −100% 

Operations 870 1,390 520 60% 

Monitoring 860 860 0 0% 

Closure 0 250 250 — 

Regulatory, Infrastructure, & Management 

Support 9,460 9,720 260 3% 

Development & Evaluation 6,740 6,870 130 2% 

Engineering, Procurement, Construction 940 0 −940 −100% 

Operations 940 2,380 1,440 153% 

Monitoring 700 370 −330 −47% 

Closure 140 100 −40 −29% 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 A-2 July 2008 

Table A-1. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 TSLCC Costs (in Millions of 2000$) (Continued) 

Cost Element 2001 TSLCC 2007 TSLCC Variance % Variance 

Transportation 7,160 16,710 9,550 133% 

Development & Evaluation 480 530 50 10% 

National Transportation 5,840 13,960 8,120 139% 

Nevada Rail Infrastructure 840 2,220 1,380 164% 

Balance of Program 7,480 9,240 1,760 24% 

Development & Evaluation 1,860 1,900 40 2% 

Quality Assurance 540 600 60 11% 

Waste Acceptance 70 300 230 329% 

Program Management 1,420 2,710 1,290 91% 

Benefits, PETT, Outreach & Institutional 3,310 2,600 −710 −21% 

Other Agencies 280 1,130 850 304% 

TOTAL CRWMS COST 57,520 79,340 21,820 38% 

NOTE: Totals may not add or compare to other totals due to rounding. 

1. All Costs in Table A-1 and in the notes below are in millions of fiscal year 2000 dollars. 

2. Some cost items reported in the 2001 TSLCC have been reallocated to conform to the way costs are 

currently tracked. This allows for a more accurate comparison between the 2001 and 2007 estimates. 

Specifically, the 2001 TSLCC adjustments and/or re allocations are as follows: 

a. Payments Equal To Taxes costs of $368 million through 2010 were transferred from Balance of 

Program to Repository; 

b. Benefit costs of $89 million through 2010 were transferred from Balance of Program to Repository; 

c. Financial Assistance costs of $352 million through 2010 were transferred from Balance of Program 

to Repository; 

d. Waste Acceptance costs of $100 million were transferred from Transportation to Balance of 

Program; and 

e. 180(c) Assistance costs of $460 million were transferred from Balance of Program to Transportation. 

3. The 2001 TSLCC total of $57,520 (in millions of 2000$) has not changed. 

4. The “Variance” and “% Variance” are calculated on costs rounded to the nearest ten million. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 A-3 July 2008 

Table A-2. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 TSLCC Assumptions 

TOPIC 2001 TSLCC 2007 TSLCC 

Waste Management 

Total Amount 

Accepted 

CSNF: 83,800 MTHM 

DOE: ~13,200 MTHM 

 21,847 defense HLW canisters 

 300 canisters West Valley HLW 

 3,841 DOE SNF canisters 

 300 Navy canisters 

CSNF: 109,300 MTHM CSNF 

DOE: 12,800 MTHM 

 19,390 defense HLW canisters 

 277 WVDP HLW canisters 

 2,788 DOE SNF canisters 

 400 Navy canisters 

License Extensions N/A 47 

Start Waste Pickup 6/2010 4/2017 

Last Waste Pickup 

Last TAD Delivery 

2040 

2040 

2063 

2073 

Transportation 

Cask Capacities Commercial Rail 

UCF: 26 PWR/68 BWR; 12 PWR/32 

BWR 

DPCs: 24/68, 26/56, 21/44 PWR/BWR 

HH: 12/32, 7/17 PWR/BWR 

LWT: 1–4 PWR/2–9 BWR, various 

specialty casks 

HLW: 5 canisters (small and large) 

DOE SNF: 9 canisters, 4 MCOs, 1 Naval 

canister 

Commercial Rail 

TAD overpacks: 21 PWR/44 BWR 

DPCs: 24 PWR, 26 PWR, 32 PWR, 36 

PWR (Yankee Rowe only), 52 

BWR, 56 BWR, 61 BWR, 68 

BWR, 80 BWR (Humboldt Bay 

only) 

LWT: 1–4 PWR/2–9 BWR, various 

specialty casks 

HLW: 5 canisters (small and large) 

DOE SNF: 9 canisters, 4 MCOs, 1 Naval 

canister 

Transportation Modal 

Split 

8 reactor pool facilities and 2 DOE storage 

sites ship by commercial LWT 

46 pool facilities ship by Small Rail 

46 pool facilities ship by Large Rail 

8 reactor pool facilities and 2 DOE 

storage sites ship by commercial LWT 

24 sites intermodal 

74 direct rail, 9 truck, 19 heavy haul/rail, 

17 barge/rail sites 

Rail Shipping General freight for all rail shipments All rail shipments by dedicated train 

Cask Maintenance 

Facility 

Limited maintenance integrated with 

repository facilities; responsibility of RSCs 

Independent facility to service and 

warehouse transportation casks and 

ancillary equipment 

Rail Equipment 

Maintenance Yard 

N/A Integrated facilities at end of Nevada Rail 

Line to service and stage rail car fleet 

Repository 

Monitoring Phase From end of emplacement to 100 years 

after the beginning of emplacement 

From 50 years beyond the last waste 

package emplacement 

Monitoring End 2110 2123 

Closure Phase 10 years 10 years 

Closure 2119 2133 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 A-4 July 2008 

Table A-2. Comparison of 2001 and 2007 TSLCC Assumptions (Continued) 

TOPIC 2001 TSLCC 2007 TSLCC 

Number of Cask 

Shipments 

Rail UCF 5,645 

Rail DPC 3,583 

Truck 1,039 

HLW 4,430 

DOE SNF 784 

Total 15,481 

Truck 4,239 

DPCs 920 

TADs 10,989 

DOE Rail 4,710 

Total 20,858 

Number of Waste 

Packages 

Large – 5,800 PWR/3,732 BWR 

Small – 293 PWR/94 BWR 

HLW including IPWF – 906 

HLW codisposed with DOE SNF – 3,643 

Naval SNF – 300 

Total – 14,768 

TADs – 7,978 PWR/5,005 BWR 

Codisp – 1,493 

CodispLong – 2,352 

CodispMCO – 220 

Navy – 90 

NavyLong – 310 

Total – 17,448 
DOE/RW-0591 July 2008 

APPENDIX B 

ANNUAL COST PROFILE 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 July 2008 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 B-1 July 2008 $0 $800 $600 $400 $200 $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000

1983

1993

2003

2013

2023

2033

2043

2053

2063

2073

2083

2093

2103

2113

2123

2133

Year

2007 Dollars Millions of 

Historical (1983 - 2006)Balance of Program (2007 - 2133)Transportation (2007 - 2073)Repository (2007 - 2133)

B1. ANNUAL COST PROFILE 

Figure B-1 shows the annual life cycle cost profile that has been decomposed into four 

categories. The costs are in 2007 dollars. For a comparison with the 2001 TSLCC, please see 

the Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

Program (May 2001), cited in Appendix C. 

Figure B-1. Annual Total System Life Cycle Cost Profile 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 B-2 July 2008 

Table B-1 presents the annual life cycle cost of the Program. The Historical costs are shaded. 

The annual estimate is in constant 2007 dollars. Budget requests for the OCRWM program are 

in year-of-expenditure dollars, and will not be the same as these charts. Additionally, the 

estimate for 2007 and 2008 do not reflect any appropriation decisions since the cost estimate was 

developed. 

Table B-1. Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$) 

Year Repository Transportation 

Balance of 

Program Total 

1983 $ 347 $ 8 $ 18 $ 374 

1984 $ 456 $ 24 $ 75 $ 555 

1985 $ 473 $ 34 $ 107 $ 614 

1986 $ 603 $ 28 $ 124 $ 755 

1987 $ 720 $ 42 $ 102 $ 864 

1988 $ 539 $ 44 $ 128 $ 711 

1989 $ 399 $ 55 $ 136 $ 590 

1990 $ 329 $ 55 $ 158 $ 541 

1991 $ 289 $ 53 $ 152 $ 493 

1992 $ 299 $ 66 $ 154 $ 520 

1993 $ 333 $ 60 $ 175 $ 568 

1994 $ 393 $ 49 $ 163 $ 605 

1995 $ 517 $ 48 $ 164 $ 729 

1996 $ 331 $ 42 $ 103 $ 476 

1997 $ 356 $ 12 $ 95 $ 463 

1998 $ 435 $ 8 $ 92 $ 535 

1999 $ 371 $ 2 $ 84 $ 457 

2000 $ 389 $ 3 $ 87 $ 479 

2001 $ 386 $ 3 $ 92 $ 480 

2002 $ 368 $ 4 $ 93 $ 464 

2003 $ 395 $ 9 $ 100 $ 504 

2004 $ 465 $ 32 $ 124 $ 621 

2005 $ 392 $ 57 $ 179 $ 627 

2006 $ 324 $ 41 $ 153 $ 517 

2007 $ 566 $ 42 $ 178 $ 786 

2008 $ 601 $ 15 $ 144 $ 759 

2009 $ 624 $ 202 $ 204 $ 1,030 

2010 $ 540 $ 418 $ 204 $ 1,162 

2011 $ 483 $ 641 $ 204 $ 1,328 

2012 $ 758 $ 782 $ 207 $ 1,746 

2013 $ 1,002 $ 683 $ 217 $ 1,902 

2014 $ 1,120 $ 374 $ 217 $ 1,710 

2015 $ 1,081 $ 260 $ 229 $ 1,569 

2016 $ 956 $ 329 $ 233 $ 1,518 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 B-3 July 2008 

Table B-1. Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$) (Continued) 

Year Repository Transportation 

Balance of 

Program Total 

2017 $ 807 $ 348 $ 202 $ 1,356 

2018 $ 811 $ 285 $ 156 $ 1,253 

2019 $ 847 $ 374 $ 157 $ 1,378 

2020 $ 795 $ 438 $ 157 $ 1,390 

2021 $ 875 $ 449 $ 159 $ 1,484 

2022 $ 787 $ 424 $ 156 $ 1,367 

2023 $ 809 $ 429 $ 162 $ 1,401 

2024 $ 770 $ 414 $ 125 $ 1,308 

2025 $ 756 $ 422 $ 125 $ 1,302 

2026 $ 765 $ 408 $ 125 $ 1,297 

2027 $ 770 $ 388 $ 125 $ 1,282 

2028 $ 800 $ 386 $ 125 $ 1,310 

2029 $ 806 $ 384 $ 97 $ 1,288 

2030 $ 771 $ 387 $ 97 $ 1,256 

2031 $ 769 $ 396 $ 97 $ 1,262 

2032 $ 781 $ 407 $ 97 $ 1,286 

2033 $ 764 $ 402 $ 97 $ 1,263 

2034 $ 877 $ 403 $ 90 $ 1,371 

2035 $ 790 $ 378 $ 90 $ 1,258 

2036 $ 780 $ 377 $ 90 $ 1,247 

2037 $ 783 $ 378 $ 78 $ 1,239 

2038 $ 777 $ 387 $ 78 $ 1,243 

2039 $ 794 $ 382 $ 74 $ 1,250 

2040 $ 789 $ 376 $ 74 $ 1,239 

2041 $ 789 $ 357 $ 74 $ 1,220 

2042 $ 782 $ 370 $ 74 $ 1,226 

2043 $ 770 $ 374 $ 74 $ 1,218 

2044 $ 798 $ 365 $ 72 $ 1,235 

2045 $ 800 $ 370 $ 72 $ 1,242 

2046 $ 763 $ 361 $ 72 $ 1,196 

2047 $ 776 $ 355 $ 66 $ 1,197 

2048 $ 748 $ 353 $ 66 $ 1,167 

2049 $ 745 $ 370 $ 66 $ 1,181 

2050 $ 691 $ 374 $ 66 $ 1,131 

2051 $ 677 $ 391 $ 66 $ 1,134 

2052 $ 719 $ 412 $ 66 $ 1,197 

2053 $ 679 $ 418 $ 66 $ 1,164 

2054 $ 518 $ 360 $ 66 $ 945 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 B-4 July 2008 

Table B-1. Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$) (Continued) 

Year Repository Transportation 

Balance of 

Program Total 

2055 $ 523 $ 244 $ 66 $ 834 

2056 $ 554 $ 112 $ 66 $ 732 

2057 $ 543 $ 69 $ 63 $ 674 

2058 $ 546 $ 67 $ 63 $ 676 

2059 $ 523 $ 66 $ 63 $ 651 

2060 $ 521 $ 66 $ 63 $ 649 

2061 $ 380 $ 65 $ 63 $ 509 

2062 $ 317 $ 65 $ 63 $ 445 

2063 $ 277 $ 57 $ 63 $ 397 

2064 $ 282 $ 31 $ 63 $ 376 

2065 $ 273 $ 31 $ 63 $ 368 

2066 $ 255 $ 31 $ 63 $ 349 

2067 $ 252 $ 31 $ 63 $ 347 

2068 $ 249 $ 32 $ 63 $ 344 

2069 $ 153 $ 33 $ 63 $ 250 

2070 $ 152 $ 35 $ 63 $ 250 

2071 $ 150 $ 27 $ 63 $ 240 

2072 $ 149 $ 13 $ 63 $ 226 

2073 $ 125 $ 2 $ 63 $ 190 

2074 $ 50 $ — $ 14 $ 65 

2075 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2076 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2077 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2078 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2079 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2080 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2081 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2082 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2083 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2084 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2085 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2086 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2087 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2088 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2089 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2090 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2091 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2092 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2093 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 B-5 July 2008 

Table B-1. Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$) (Continued) 

Year Repository Transportation 

Balance of 

Program Total 

2094 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2095 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2096 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2097 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2098 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2099 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2100 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2101 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2102 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2103 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2104 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2105 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2106 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2107 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2108 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2109 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2110 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2111 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2112 $ 50 $ — $ 13 $ 63 

2113 $ 744 $ — $ 13 $ 756 

2114 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2115 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2116 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2117 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2118 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2119 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2120 $ 744 $ — $ 41 $ 785 

2121 $ 750 $ — $ 41 $ 791 

2122 $ 757 $ — $ 41 $ 798 

2123 $ 757 $ — $ 41 $ 798 

2124 $ 119 $ — $ 40 $ 159 

2125 $ 113 $ — $ 40 $ 154 

2126 $ 121 $ — $ 40 $ 161 

2127 $ 122 $ — $ 40 $ 162 

2128 $ 129 $ — $ 40 $ 169 

2129 $ 126 $ — $ 40 $ 166 

2130 $ 129 $ — $ 40 $ 169 

2131 $ 178 $ — $ 37 $ 215 

2132 $ 165 $ — $ 30 $ 195 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 B-6 July 2008 

Table B-1. Annual Cost Profile (in Millions of 2007$) (Continued) 

Year Repository Transportation 

Balance of 

Program Total 

2133 $ 159 $ — $ 27 $ 186 

TOTAL $ 64,728 $ 20,252 $ 11,201 $ 96,181 

NOTE: Columns totals may not add due to rounding. 
DOE/RW-0591 July 2008 

APPENDIX C 

REFERENCES 
DOE/RW-0591 July 2008 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 C-1 July 2008 

C1. REFERENCES 

C1.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2001. Analysis of the Total System Life Cycle Cost of the 

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. DOE/RW-0533. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

ACC: MOL.20010802.0217. 

DOE 2007. Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for 

the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250F-S1D (Repository SEIS), Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 

GAO (Government Accountability Office) March 2005. Information for Congress on 

Performance of Major Program Can Be More Complete, Timely, and Accessible. GAO-05-182. 

C1.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES CITED 

10 CFR 63. 2004. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 

Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. ACC: MOL.20050323.0071. 

10 CFR 71. 2007. Energy: Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material. 

ACC: MOL.20070829.0114. 

10 CFR 72. 2007. Energy: Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent 

Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste. 

52 FR 31508. Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; Calculating Nuclear Waste Fund 

Disposal Fees for Department of Energy Defense Program Waste. ACC: MOL.20050412.0152. 

69 FR 18557. Record of Decision on Mode of Transportation and Nevada Rail Corridor for the 

Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 

County, NV. ACC: MOL.20050418.0148. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987. Public Law No. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330. 

TIC: 223717. 
Total System Life Cycle Cost Report

DOE/RW-0591 C-2 July 2008 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK