Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel - Woods Hole Research Center

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 / Current Technologies, Economics, and Status of Interim Spent Fuel Storage already have filled their pools to capacity, losing the ability to offload a full reactor core into the pool. Many other reactors will lose this capacity over the next few years, unless additional storage is provided. 63 An appendix at the end of this chapter shows, for each U.S. reactor, the pool capacity, the amount of spent fuel currently stored, the date at which the ability to off-load a full core will be lost if no additional storage is provided, and whether the plant is using dry cask storage to complement its pool or not, as of late 1998. As described in Chapter 3, a number of efforts to establish large centralized interim storage facilities in the United States have so far failed, though some are still being pursued. Hence, reactor operators have established dry storage facilities (primarily dry cask storage facilities) at their reactor sites. Spent fuel dry storage designs are wellestablished technologies that have been licensed in the United States since 1985. As of the end of 1998, 19 reactors at 11 sites employed dry storage to enhance their ability to meet their spent fuel storage needs. 64 Another 11 sites have identified a vendor for dry storage, and some of these are under construction. 65 The NRC has licensed twelve dry storage models of a variety of different designs. 66 Utility companies that own reactors can either add dry storage under their existing general site operating license using a pre-approved storage system design, or they can get a sitespecific license for their dry storage system. 67 The amount of fuel in dry storage in the United States is more than in any other country except Canada (whose CANDU reactors generate much larger tonnages of spent fuel per unit of electricity produced than light-water reactors do). 68 Overall, the safety record of dry storage in the United States has been very good. There have been no incidents that released any radioactivity to the environment, or that over-exposed any facility workers. There have, however, been a number of problems in the U.S. program reflecting the need to maintain constant vigilance over the quality of design, manufacture, loading, and sealing of all aspects of the dry cask storage system, as discussed above. Current Storage Status: Japan Although Japan’s current policy is to reprocess all spent nuclear fuel, a substantial fraction of Japan’s spent fuel has not yet been reprocessed. According to a recent estimate from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), as of September, 1999, the cumulative amount of spent nuclear fuel generated in Japan was 14,620 tHM. About one-third of this (5,630 tHM) has been shipped to European reprocessing companies in UK and France, and 940 tonnes has been shipped to the pilot-scale Japanese reprocessing plant at Tokai. Only 20 tonnes had been shipped to the Rokkasho reprocessing plant now under construction. Therefore, about half of the spent fuel generated in Japan (8,030 tHM) was being stored at reactor sites. See Table 2.2 on the next page. 63 For a detailed analysis of spent fuel storage capacity and the dates at which the capacity to off-load a full core will be lost, see Allison Macfarlane, “Interim Storage of Spent Fuel in the United States,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, forthcoming. A chart showing projected year at which the capability to offload a full core will be lost for each reactor is available at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/drycask/sfdata.htm. 64 These reactors are: Surry 1 & 2, North Anna 1 & 2 (both Virginia Power), Robinson 2 (Carolina Light & Power), Oconee 1, 2 &3 (Duke Power), Fort St. Vrain (Public Service Company of Colorado), Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2 (Baltimore Gas & Electric), Palisades (Consumers Energy), Prairie Island 1 & 2 (Northern States Power Company), Point Beach 1&2 (Wisconsin Electric Power), Arkansas Nuclear 1&2 (Entergy Arkansas Inc.), and Davis-Besse (First Energy Nuclear Operating). For an updated list of sites with NRC licenses for dry storage, see http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/reports/cask.htm#licensees. 65 Nigel Mote, “Worldwide Experience of Dry Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” presentation to the Harvard Project on Managing the Atom and Tokyo University Project on Socio-Technics of Nuclear Energy Workshop on Interim Storage of Spent Fuel, February 18-19, 1999. 66 See discussion in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” available at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/drycask/. 67 Ibid. 68 IAEA, Survey of Wet and Dry Spent Fuel Storage, op. cit., p. 5. 23
24 At the current generation rate of roughly 900 tHM per year, the total available storage capacity at existing reactor sites (12,930 tHM) is only enough to hold 4-5 years of continued spent fuel accumulation. Some specific reactor sites have even less time remaining before their storage capacity is exhausted. Storage capacity is being increased at many reactors by re-racking existing storage pools, but there are clear limits to how much additional capacity can be gained by this means. Utilities are now permitted to move fuel from older reactors with limited storage capacity to the larger-capacity pools of newer reactors, but this INTERIM STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Table 2.2: Current Status of Spent Fuel Storage in Japan (as of September 1999) 69 Location Facility SF in Store (MT) Storage Capacity (MT) Hokkaido Tomari 220 420 Tohoku Onagawa 170 370 Tokyo Fukushima 1 990 2100 Fukushima 2 1150 1360 Kashi-Kari 1200 1890 Chubu Hamaoka 620 860 Hokuriku Shika 30 100 Kansai Mihama 230 300 Takahama 740 1100 Ohi 620 840 Chugoku Shimane 270 390 Shikoku Ikata 290 530 Kyushu Genkai 2 330 1060 Sendai 540 700 JAPCo Tsuruga 400 650 Tokai 2 200 260 Total 8,030 12,930 requires relicensing, 70 and does not address the problem of limited total storage capacity. Unit 2 at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima site is the only reactor in Japan where new storage facilities have been built in addition to the reactor storage pool, including a new common storage pool and a dry cask storage building. The common storage pool was completed in 1997 and its capacity is 1,200 tHM (6,840 fuel assemblies). The dry cask storage facility—the only such facility operational in Japan— was completed in September 1995, and has a capacity of 20 casks, i.e. 860 fuel assemblies or about 150 tonnes. 71 69 Based on Current Status of Spent Fuel Storage in Japan (Tokyo: Ministry of International Trade and Industry, Nuclear Industry Division, February 2000). The capacity figures represent the capacity while keeping enough pool space empty for one full core load and one annual reload. 70 For example, Tokyo Electric Power applied for a license for such a “reactor-to-reactor” transfer of spent fuel at the Fukushima plants in 1999. On April 13, 2000, 31 fuel assemblies were shipped from the #4 reactor to the #2 reactor, with its additional spent fuel storage facilities. 71 For an overview of the casks used in this facility and their specifications, see Saegusa, Ito and Suzuki, An Overview of the State of the Arts of Nuclear Spent Fuel Management, op. cit.
Page 1 and 2: Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fu
Page 3 and 4: © 2001 Harvard University and Univ
Page 5 and 6: Observations . . . . . . . . . . .
Page 8 and 9: Executive Summary The management of
Page 10 and 11: Executive Summary ix approaches (an
Page 12 and 13: Executive Summary xi ernment’s co
Page 14 and 15: Executive Summary xiii ures could b
Page 16: Executive Summary xv proposed new o
Page 19 and 20: 2 im storage does involve a cost, i
Page 21 and 22: 4 troversy over expanding on-site s
Page 24 and 25: 2. Current Technologies, Economics,
Page 26 and 27: Chapter 2 / Current Technologies, E
Page 48: Chapter 2 / Current Technologies, E
Page 51 and 52: 34 Rokkasho-mura, but it can hold o
Page 53 and 54: 36 lished a commercial reprocessing
Page 55 and 56: 38 consent to siting new plants if
Page 57 and 58: 40 nuclear fuel cycle facilities. A
Page 59 and 60: 42 falling to 32% after the acciden
Page 61 and 62: 44 tioned in other specific activit
Page 63 and 64: 46 ities (who pass the charge on to
Page 65 and 66: 48 waste. The NWPA set firm timetab
Page 67 and 68: 50 Onsite Fuel Storage Controversie
Page 69 and 70: 52 to cover the cost of geologic di
Page 71 and 72: 54 Many spent fuel storage debates
Page 73 and 74: 56 Finally, the U.S. experience dem
Page 75 and 76: 58 would be beneficial for both the
Page 77 and 78: 60 ment context, national governmen
Page 79 and 80: 62 United States and Canada, which
Page 81 and 82: 64 may have broader interests in bu
Page 83 and 84: 66 Providing an Option to Remove Ma
Page 85 and 86: 68 and populations are fiercely opp
Page 87 and 88: 70 Past and Current Proposals Conce
Page 89 and 90: 72 Palmyra Atoll, an uninhabited U.
Page 91 and 92:
74 ates, an international waste-man
Page 93 and 94:
76 an estimated temporary storage p
Page 95 and 96:
78 available from the provision of
Page 97 and 98:
80 critical of Russia’s cooperati
Page 99 and 100:
82 planned U.S. national missile de
Page 101 and 102:
84 worked hard to convince Russian
Page 104 and 105:
5. Key Issues, Tensions, and Approa
Page 106 and 107:
Chapter 5 / Key Issues, Tensions, a
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 136 and 137:
Chapter 6 / Conclusions and Recomme
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142:
The Project on Socio-technics of Nu
show all

Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel - Woods Hole Research Center

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?