Skip to main content

Potential Cost Implications of an Interim Storage Facility for Commercial SNF

Josh Jarrell
Robert Joseph III
Rob Howard
Riley Cumberland
Gordon Petersen
Mark Nutt
Joe Carter
Tom Cotton
Publication Date

Attachment Size
Cost_Implications_final_approved.pdf (421.34 KB) 421.34 KB

The question of whether or not consolidated interim storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) should be part of the federal waste management system as an intermediate step before permanent disposal has been debated for more than four decades. This paper summarizes an evaluation of the cost implications of incorporating a consolidated interim storage facility (ISF) into the waste management system (WMS). In this study, the order-of-magnitude estimates of total system costs were calculated and tabulated. The analyzed scenarios involve shipment of SNF from reactors in dual-purpose storage and transportation canisters (DPCs) currently being used by utilities for dry storage at reactor sites. A number of pertinent conclusions can be drawn from this evaluation, including:
• Delay in repository availability increases total system costs. Any delay in opening a repository increases total system costs, regardless of whether the system has an ISF or not. This is due to the increased cost associated
with an extended duration for storage, whether at multiple independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) or at an ISF, until waste can be disposed of.
• There is a potential total system life-cycle cost avoidance in realistic scenarios with an ISF when compared to scenarios with no ISF. However, most of the cost avoidance occurs several decades after the ISF is opened. The total WMS cost differential over the long term is mainly attributed to the reduced operational costs of storing the fuel in a consolidated facility rather than at individual reactor sites.
• Earlier establishment of an ISF allows for more avoidance of post-shutdown at-reactor storage costs for any repository opening date.
An ISF allows earlier acceptance of fuel from reactors, which reduces at-reactor costs from a total system perspective.
• Transportation costs have little impact on a WMS with or without an ISF. These impacts range from 3–11% of the total cost in all scenarios. Therefore, transporting the fuel twice does not appear to be a significant cost
concern driver relative to other system costs.

In conclusion, designing, licensing, and constructing an ISF will require a large near-term financial investment. However, reduced annual operating and maintenance costs for an integrated waste management system with an ISF, compared to a system without an ISF, could eventually result in system-wide (integrated) cost avoidance due to reductions in at-reactor storage costs in the long term. The largest cost avoidances would not occur for several decades, so assumptions about inflation, escalation, and discount rates will have a significant effect on potential economic impacts of an ISF. It should be noted that other benefits associated with the investment of an ISF—such as earlier removal of SNF from shutdown reactor sites, earlier prospects for site reutilization, and additional overall integrated waste management system flexibility—were not addressed in this study.

Additional Information
Presented at WM Symposia 2017