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 1970s: DOE conducts siting for repositories Steep opposition from site candidates After NWPAA Steep opposition from state of Nevada NWPA—NWF used to accept UNF by 1998 —first site must be chosen by 1987 One site—Even steeper opposition from site candidates NWPAA —Yucca Mountain sole candidate for repository evaluation —Storage development linked to siting of a repository

Consequences of Current Situation Costly storage at decommissioned plants $4.5-$8 million per site per year $1 million at active site Damages paid by taxpayers $1 billion awarded so far $15.4 billion by 2020 NWF has $25 billion $28 billion in damages if full breach of contract “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: Siting, designing, and licensing: $100 million Centralized storage would pay for itself from cost savings of closing decommissioned sites “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 State has no authority to cancel development, but soft politics Site establishment may lead to more sites, or no more sites being established. New site more feasible than using decommissioned plant or utilities or states establishing central sites.

Technical Benefits Platform for long-term research Used fuel would be available for reprocessing Centralized resources and equipment Lower total worker dosage Standardized procedure for handling fuel could be implemented. Streamline inspection progress, establish consistent standards for inspection “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 Siting for storage would be good practice for disposal the type of pressure that led to failure of Yucca Mountain , adjust rate of flow to repository, sort fuel thermally,

Formed January 29, 2010 The Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendations for storage and disposal are relevant to implementation issues for storage policy. to provide recommendations for nuclear materials processing and management.

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. Should be moved to discretionary side of budget “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 Storage needs to be unlinked from disposal Regulation of casks changes with storage, increasing license period to 40 years Well established technology and regulation. Regulation would only need to be tweaked with technological advance, and as storage moves to long-term. Rules for safety of storage facility already established in 10 CFR Part 72. Different types of casks, if one is evaluated to be better, or if oversight methods are changed due to new technology “Transportation and Storage Subcommittee Report to the Full Commission (Draft).” Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Washington, DC. May 31, 2011.

Questions? ericdavied@gmail.com http://www.atlantaworkerscompblog.com/Q&Amb(2).png ericdavied@gmail.com