2005a, p. 2). According to the Board, this interdependence should be taken into account when conducting performance assessments or proposing changes to the waste management program. System studies and system assessments were not mentioned in key OCRWM documents such as “Developing the Transportation System” (1994), “Transportation System Concept of Operations” (2006), or “National Transportation Plan” (2009). Thinking ahead to the future, a new or revived transportation program may result from the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Whatever agency or body is assigned responsibility for managing the nation’s spent fuel and high-level waste should heed the Board’s advice and take the opportunity to conduct top level system studies early on in the process of designing an integrated waste management system. TRANSPORTATION AFTER VERY LONG-TERM STORAGE Delays in opening the repository will lead to longer periods of on-site storage for spent fuel in dry casks than was originally anticipated. The consensus is that very long-term storage does not in itself pose a problem because the robust nature of the casks will safely store spent fuel for 100 years or more. In 2009, however, after the Obama Administration announced its intention to cancel the Yucca Mountain repository, the NWTRB began to examine the implications for keeping spent fuel in dry storage for hundreds of years. Included in that examination are the potential impacts on the ability to transport spent fuel that had been stored in casks for such lengthy periods of time. In addition to the NWTRB, other stakeholders that should be involved in resolving this issue include technical experts; state government officials who either have dry storage facilities in their jurisdictions or will be affected by shipments of spent fuel; and local communities that may be faced with situations in which spent fuel becomes “stranded” due to an inability to transport it. The NWTRB summer meeting in June 2009 featured a panel of technical experts discussing the “research and data needs for very- long-term dry storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel” (NWTRB 2009a, p. 4). The Board defined“very long-term” as meaning“greater than 120 years.” In his summary letter to Congress and to Energy Secretary Steven Chu reporting on the meeting, Board chairman B. John Garrick wrote that, based on the panel discussion, “the technical basis for designing and operating dry-storage systems for a very long termwarrants improvement” (Garrick 2009, p. 2). One of the concerns expressed by the Board was “the condition of the spent fuel in the canisters because it must be shipped, possibly repackaged, and eventually disposed of (or reprocessed) after a long period of dry storage” (ibid.). Dr. Garrick further stated that the Board would prepare a white paper on this topic. During the panel, a Board member observed that, while it is reasonable to assume safe storage for 100 years, “what happens
when you have to ship the fuel after 100 years?” (NWTRB 2009b, p. 213). John Kessler from the Electric Power Research Institute responded that, as long as utilities have “maintained [a] helium environment [inside the casks], it’s not going to change the property of the fuel” (ibid., p. 213). Robert Eizinger, an NRC staff member with decades of experience on storage issues, later echoed the board member’s concern when he said “we shouldn’t ask the question can we store [spent fuel] for ‘X’ number of years, but rather can we store it for ‘X’ number of years and still maintain the fuel in a transportable condition” (ibid., p. 231). In November 2009, the GAO issued a report that examined the “key attributes, challenges, and costs” of three alternatives for long-term management of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste (GAO 2009). The report suggested that, by giving spent fuel and high- level waste time “to cool and become less radioactive,” longer on- site storage “could reduce transportation risks…since the nuclear waste would be cooler and less radioactive when it is finally transported to a repository” (ibid., p. 36). The report acknowledged, however, that the NRC had brought up the possibility that “waste or waste packages might degrade over time,” thereby “possibly increasing the risks of release” (ibid., pp. 36-37). Such a concern could extend to handling for both repackaging and transportation. At the 2010 Dry Storage Information Forum sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute, it was reported that EPRI, the NRC, and DOE’s new Office of Used Fuel Disposition were collaborating on a research program to address whether casks can safely store spent fuel for periods beyond 120 years and still maintain the fuel in transportable condition (MRMTC 2010a). Called the “Extended Storage Collaboration Program,” the study’s findings will not be available until after the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future issues its own recommendations for a national policy to replace the one laid out in the NWPA.
111
Made with FlippingBook Annual report