1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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,

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. New Approach to Siting Consent-based Phased and Adaptive
Science and standards based
Involve local government
Provide an economic boon to host community

13. 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.

14. Questions? ericdavied@gmail.com