The DOE Position on the MRS Facility

The position of the Department of Energy (DOE) on the facility for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) can be summarized as follows: · ·<br/>• The DOE supports: the development of an MRS facility as an integral part of the waste-management system because an MRS facility would allow the DOE to better meet its strategic objectives of timely disposal, timely and adequate waste acceptance, schedule confidence, and system flexibility. This facility would receive, store, and stage shipments of intact spent fuel to the repository and could be later expanded to perform additional functions that may be determined to be beneficial or required as the system design matures.<br/>• Recognizing the difficulty of DOE-directed siting through national or regional screening, the DOE prefers an MRS facility that is sited through the efforts of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator, especially if the siting negotiations lead to linkages that allow the advantages of an MRS facility to be more fully realized. Even if such revised linkages are not achieved, however, the DOE supports the development of the MRS facility.<br/>The DOE&#39;s position on the need for an MRS facility is drawn from many analyses and evaluations performed in the last several years, beginning with a preliminary assessment in 1985 of the need for, and the<br/>feasibility of, an MRS facility; a study that examined the design and operational interfaces between the MRS facility and the repository, including such factors as licensing, effects on repository development, and the allocation of functions between the MRS facility and the repository;<br/>and a detailed need and-feasibility study in DOE&#39;s 1987 proposal<br/>to the Congress to construct an MRS facility. These analyses indicated that the inclusion of an MRS facility would lead to an improved performance waste-management system with significant advantages over<br/>a system without an MRS facility. Next came a study, performed in response to comments by the ·General Accounting Office and others, that compared the improved-performance system against an optimized no-MRS system in which additional spent-fuel storage would be provided at reactor sites. The DOE has performed several annual analyses of total system life-cycle costs (see, for example, Ref. 6). And the DOE has<br/>recently completed a study of dry at-reactor storage as well as a set of systems studies.<br/>The systems studies analyzed a wide range of scenarios to examine systems with and without an MRS facility as well as MRS facilities performing a variety of functions. In addition, the DOE has closely followed spent fuel storage developments in other countries, including Canada, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden.<br/>These studies and analyses have encompassed almost all of the issues raised in the: hearings held by the MRS Review Commission and in other forums. The only issues that were not explicitly addressed were the<br/>development of multiple MRS facilities and the siting of the MRS facility in Nevada, though expanded lag storage at the repository site was examined in the environmental assessment included in the DOE&#39;s 1987<br/>proposal.<br/>DOE has also performed qualitative evaluations to examine how including an MRS facility in the waste-management system would help to achieve permanent waste isolation in a geologic repository consistent<br/>with the DOE &#39;s basic policy goals and program objectives. The policy goals include protecting the health and safety of the public, protecting the quality of the environment, and allowing full and open participation <br/>by the public. The program objectives given these policy goals are (1) timely disposal, (2) timely, and adequate waste acceptance, (3) schedule confidence, and (4) system flexibility. These goals will be<br/>discussed in more detail later.<br/>Its evaluations have led the DOE to identify the preferred MRS concept--namely, an integral MRS facility that is developed to provide spent-fuel acceptance from reactors, temporary storage, and staging for<br/>shipment to the repository arid can be later expanded to perform other functions if appropriate. <br/>The results of the DOE&#39;s evaluations indicate that the inclusion of such an MRS facility would provide significant advantages to the Federal waste management system, but the addition of the MRS facility<br/>would increase the cost of the system. The DOE recognizes that storage at reactor sites can be safely continued and that additional at-reactor storage will continue to be necessary until such time, and for some time thereafter, as the Federal Government is able to begin receiving spent fuel with or without an MRS facility. However, an MRS facility can provide direct and substantial benefits in demonstrating early Federal capability to successfully solve the waste-management problem through early and adequate waste acceptance, enhancing confidence in the development of the waste-management system, and providing needed flexibility both in operations and timing.<br/>The DOE also looks forward with anticipation to hearing the findings and recommendations of the MRS Review Commission. The DOE will consider and take into account the MRS Review Commission&#39;s findings and observations as the DOE continues to refine the design and the implementation of the waste management system.