The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

These broad recommendations lead to specific recommended actions. Remove SNF from
decommissioned reactor sites to a secure national facility that has the infrastructure to support
long term storage. The PFS experience has demonstrated the licenseability of a consolidated
storage site. If a policy decision is made on recycling, collocate interim storage,
reprocessing, and fuel fabrication (with recycled fissionable materials) facilities. This would
minimize future storage and transportation costs and minimize proliferation risks. Legislation
should be introduced to remove the linkage between the repository and the construction
of an interim storage facility. 12 Spent fuel retrieveability should be considered for any
repository to preserve options.
CitationS and noteS
1. OCED Nuclear Energy Agency, Proc. International Conference and Dialogue on Reversibility and Retrievability in Planning
Geological Repositories, Reims, France (December 14-17, 2010).
2. www.skb.se
3. U.S. Department of Energy, License Application for a High-Level Waste Geological Repository at Yucca Mountain, (June
3, 2008)
4. www.andra.fr/international/index.html
5. ANDRA, Dossier 2005: Andra Research on the Geological Disposal of High-Level Long-Lived Radioactive Waste: Results
and Perspectives (2005)
6. Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation, Conceptual Designs for Waste Packages for Horizontal or Vertical Emplacement in a
Repository in Salt, BMI/ONWI/C-145 (June 1987)
7. A. C. Kadak and K. Yost, Key Issues Associated with Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel, Center for Advanced Nuclear
Energy Systems (CANES), MIT-NFC-TR-123, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (December 2010).
8. There have been only limited shipments in the U.S. in recent decades of SNF. However, the U.S. navy regularly ships
SNF from nuclear navy maintenance facilities to storage facilities in Idaho. Overseas (France, Great Britain, Sweden,
Japan, etc.) there is a massive experience base in shipping commercial SNF. European experience with SNF shipment
is roughly equivalent to that required to fill a repository of the size of Yucca Mountain (See Going the Distance, The
Safe Transport of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste in the United States, National Research Council
(2006), Table 3.5)
9. A. C. Kadak and K. Yost, Key Issues Associated with Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel, Center for Advanced Nuclear
Energy Systems (CANES), MIT-NFC-TR-123, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (December 2010)
10. United States Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Evaluation of the Technical Basis for Extended Dry Storage and
Transportation of Used Nuclear Fuel, December 2010
11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel
After Cessation of Reactor Operation,” 10CFR Part 51, Federal Register, 75, No. 246, December 23, 2010
12. There are large technical, economic, and non-proliferation incentives to collocate reprocessing and recycle fuel fabrication
facilities at either interim SNF storage sites or at the repository site (Chapter 5). The traditional vision of the
fuel cycle with separately sited storage, reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and repository facilities is an accident of history
that resulted from the sequence of development of early nuclear fuel cycle facilities associated with national
security.
chapter 4: Interim Storage of Spent nuclear Fuel 53