Disposal and Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel--Finding the Right Balance, A report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, established a statutory basis<br/>for managing the nation’s civilian (or commercially produced) spent nuclear<br/>fuel. The law established a process for siting, developing, licensing, and constructing<br/>an underground repository for the permanent disposal of that waste.<br/>Utilities were given the primary responsibility for storing spent fuel until it is<br/>accepted by the federal government for disposal at a repository, which originally<br/>was expected to begin operating in 1998. In December 1995, however, in<br/>testimony submitted to the Senate, the Secretary of Energy projected that a repository<br/>may not begin operating until around 2015 (DOE 1995c). Delays in repository<br/>operation mean that much more commercial spent nuclear fuel will<br/>require storage for much longer time periods than originally were anticipated.<br/>Recently, as a result of efforts primarily on the part of nuclear utilities and public<br/>utility commissions, several legislative proposals have been introduced in<br/>Congress that would require the DOE to develop a federal centralized storage<br/>facility that could begin accepting commercial spent nuclear fuel in 1998 or<br/>soon thereafter. In addition, because they believe that they have unconditional<br/>contracts that require the DOE to begin accepting their spent fuel in 1998, a<br/>large group of state agencies and utilities have sued the federal government to<br/>obtain a judgment on the nature of the DOE’s contractual obligation. In response<br/>to utility concerns, Congress’s fiscal year 1996 appropriation included<br/>an $85 million set-aside for possible development of a federal spent fuel storage<br/>facility. The activities in Congress foreshadow a possible change in focus<br/>for the DOE’s civilian radioactive waste management program — from permanent<br/>disposal to temporary storage. The prospect of a change in program focus<br/>has heightened the debate about how to address utility concerns about continuing<br/>at-reactor storage of spent fuel while keeping the program focused on the<br/>long-term national goal of permanent disposal.<br/>In this report, the Board looks at issues related to storing commercial spent nuclear<br/>fuel. The Board identified about two-dozen issues that reflect the concerns<br/>of wide-ranging, strongly held, often conflicting perspectives. Some of<br/>these issues, which are listed in Note 1, are of a technical nature; some are institutional;<br/>many are policy-related. Because of the diversity of opinions about<br/>these issues, any attempt to reach a decision about how best to store commercial<br/>spent fuel until a repository begins operating ultimately will involve making<br/>value judgments. The Board found that, from its technical perspective, the<br/>connection between storage and disposal is of particular relevance to a debate<br/>about where to store commercial spent fuel. Timing of storage initiatives also<br/>has significant implications for repository development.<br/>To facilitate their discussion in this report, we have tried to group the issues:<br/>(1) Concerns of the nuclear utilities and public service commissions that have<br/>motivated them to place the interim storage and acceptance issue on the legislative<br/>and judicial agendas; (2) Issues that are primarily technical in nature; (3)<br/>Other institutional issues including concerns of public interest and community<br/>groups. The report is organized into chapters that address most of the issues<br/>specifically. At the end of most chapters, the Board’s key thoughts from that<br/>chapter are summarized.<br/>The reader will find that the lines separating the groupings are blurry at times.<br/>For example, some technical issues have cost and planning implications for nuclear<br/>utilities or reflect concerns of other stakeholders. Some stakeholder concerns,<br/>such as the concern that a storage facility could become a de facto<br/>disposal site, have potential technical implications for repository development.<br/>After reviewing all of these issues, however, the Board concluded that it is possible<br/>to find the right balance between disposal and storage and that long-term<br/>spent fuel storage needs can be addressed in such a way that the goal of repository<br/>development stays on track.