Transcript Long-Term Interim Storage Plan for Used Nuclear Fuel:

Long-Term Interim Storage for
Used Nuclear Fuel:
Dry Cask Storage in Centralized Storage
Facilities
Eric M. Davied
American Nuclear Society
Texas A&M University
August 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
decommissioned
plants
• $4.5-$8 million
per site per year
• $1 million
at active site
“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.
• Damages paid by taxpayers
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
“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.
• Centralized resources and equipment
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 burden
for 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
“Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon
Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.
• Continue technological research
Questions?
http://www.atlantaworkerscompblog.com/Q&Amb(2).png
[email protected]