Long-Term Interim Storage for Used Nuclear Fuel: Dry Cask Storage in Centralized Storage Facilities

Eric M. DaviedAmerican Nuclear SocietyTexas A&M UniversityAugust 4, 2011

Current Used Fuel Storage•All used fuel is stored on site•65 active sites; 9 decommissioned sites•65,000 MTHM•2,000-2,300 MTHM produced annually•A cask can hold 10-15 MTHM

“Impacts Associated with Transfer of Spent Nuclear Fuel from Spent Fuel Storage Pools to Dry Storage After Five Years of Cooling.” Electric Power Research Institute. Palo Alto, California. November 2010.

Lack of a Storage and Disposal Plan•1982: Nuclear Waste Policy Act

•DOE decides to site only one repository

•1987: Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments

•Unrealistic deadlines and nonconsensual siting methods lead to failure

Consequences of Current Situation• Costly storage at decommissionedplants

• $4.5-$8 millionper site per year

• $1 million at active site

• Damages paid by taxpayers

“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.

Total annual storage costs at decommissioned plants:

“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.

Siting•Nonconsensual siting fails

•“soft politics” plays a large role

•Away from flooding and seismically active areas

•Better to establish a new site

Technical Benefits•Platform for long-term research

•Used fuel would be available for reprocessing

•Centralized resources and equipment“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.

Storage Supports Disposal•Generally same siting process

•Alleviates pressure for repository

•Storage would be buffer step to disposal

•Formed January 29, 2010

•The Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations for storage and disposal are relevant to implementation issues for storage policy.

New Waste Management Organization

•Provide more consistent progress where DOE did not

•Blue Ribbon Commission recommends a federal corporation

•Independence from political micromanagement while maintaining sufficient governmental oversight

Nuclear Waste Fund should be more Available

•Should be collected after appropriations

•Reduce budget burdenfor further removal from budget and appropriations.

“Disposal Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (DRAFT).” Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. June 1, 2011.

New Approach to Siting

•Consent-based•Phased and Adaptive•Science and standards based•Involve local government•Provide an economic boon to host

community

Other Recommendations:•Commence siting for storage and a repository

•Maintain high standards in regulatory policy

•Continue technological research“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.

Questions?

http://www.atlantaworkerscompblog.com/Q&Amb(2).png

ericdavied@gmail.com