ECA Update: October 23, 2014 - DOE Releases Disposal Options Assessment
Published: Thu, 10/23/14
Yesterday, DOE released a report, "Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel." The assessment considers whether DOE-managed high-level waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) should be disposed of together with commercial HLW and SNF in one geologic repository, or whether there are advantages to developing separate geologic disposal pathways for some DOE-managed HLW and SNF. Results of the assessment indicate that it is technically feasible to have multiple disposal options that can potentially provide necessary safe, long-term isolation, and that there are advantages to a strategy that allows some DOE HLW and SNF to be disposed of separately from the commercial HLW and SNF.
The report recommends that DOE pursue options for disposing of DOE-managed HLW from defense activities and some thermally-cooler DOE-managed SNF (such as cooler naval SNF) separately from commercial HLW and SNF waste. The potential advantages for doing this include:
1. Fewer challenges. The report notes that a repository used exclusively for the disposal of DOE-managed HLW and SNF not of commercial origin can be sited and developed outside the framework of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
2. It requires little further technology development to support repository design and licensing.
3. Could provide a greater degree of public acceptability.
Other potential benefits are also identified in the report, including:
1. Providing a pathway for timely progress on DOE's cleanup mission.
Page vi: "A significant amount of HLW already exists in its final form at the Savannah River Site (3,339 canisters out of a projected total of 7,824 to be produced at that site), and existing and projected HLW canisters are of a size that is transportable by truck to allow disposal to begin as soon as possible."
2. Supporting national security objectives.
Page vi: "Delays in removing naval SNF from the State of Idaho could potentially impact naval operations beginning in 2035 because of a binding settlement agreement entered into by DOE and the Navy with the State of Idaho to remove SNF from the state by that time."
3. Potentially create savings to taxpayers from avoided costs for safely storing inventories of immobilized tank waste if a separate repository for DOE's HLW and SNF is available earlier.
Page vi: "The resulting savings could be redirected to focus work scope and resources on other high-priority cleanup activities at the three defense HLW sites: the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, the Hanford Site in Washington, and the Idaho National Laboratory. In addition, the earlier availability of a repository...could help keep tank waste disposition costs and schedules within the baseline estimates by reducing uncertainty in final waste form treatment approaches, reducing the extent of maintenance and repairs to infrastructure, and accelerating the work."
4. Simplifying design and licensing for the repository.
Page vi: "...primarily because of the lower thermal output and lower overall radionuclide inventory of DOE-managed HLW and SNF under consideration."
5. Supporting the cleanup mission at the DOE sites, promote cooperation between DOE and state regulators, help enhance public acceptability of DOE's mission with local communities around the DOE complex.
Page vi: "...allow other priority cleanup activities to receive additional funding, and increase the likelihood of DOE meeting consent and compliance agreements."
6. Providing an opportunity to develop and test a consent-based repository siting process in consultation with stakeholders.
Other DOE-managed HLW and SNF, including the waste with commercial origin and naval SNF with higher heat output, would be disposed of together with the commercial waste.
The report also recommends that deep boreholes be considered an option for disposal of smaller DOE-managed waste forms (rather than in a mined geologic repository).
Please note that DOE states in the assessment that the report is for comparison and informational purposes only and is not a decision document. DOE further notes that the options they consider do not take into account legal or regulatory considerations.
Download full report at: http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/10/f18/DOE_Options_Assessment.pdf
ECA will provide further analysis on this in the October Bulletin next week. |
|
