Jeremy L. Dillon
RW Monitor
10/24/2014
The Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy is recommending separate repository disposal pathways for DOE-managed high-level waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from commercial HLW and SNF, according to its report on co-mingling, released this week. The report “considers whether DOE-managed HLW and SNF should be disposed of with commercial SNF and HLW in one geologic repository or whether there are advantages to developing separate geologic disposal pathways for some DOE-managed HLW and SNF,” DOE said. In its conclusions, the report says that DOE-managed HLW and SNF should be disposed of first due to the fewer challenges they pose, resulting in a simpler repository design and licensing processes, while engendering confidence in its ability to dispose of waste and meet its environmental management goals.
The report recommends moving forward with a consent-based plan for a repository for the DOE-managed waste while also doing research and development of deep borehole disposal of smaller waste forms. “Specifically, this report recommends that the DOE begin implementation of a phased, adaptive, and consent-based strategy with development of a separate mined repository for some DOE-managed HLW and cooler DOE-managed SNF, potentially including some portion of the inventory of naval SNF,” the report said. “This report notes that, in addition to early development of a separate repository for cooler DOE-managed HLW and SNF, effective implementation of a strategy for management and disposal of all HLW and SNF would also include a focused research, development, and demonstration program addressing technologies relevant to deep borehole disposal of smaller DOE-managed waste forms and the disposal of large DOE managed waste packages with high thermal loads in mined repositories.”
The issue of co-mingling deals primarily with whether defense-related high-level waste and commercial spent fuel should continue to be managed together. One of the major subject areas within the co-mingling study revolves around the differences between 1980’s, when the policy of managing both types of waste together was originally established, and now. Both types of material had been planned to be co-mingled together in the now shuttered Yucca Mountain geological waste repository, but by separating the two, the Department of Energy would not be limited by the parameters of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and have more flexibility in design and implementation.
Savings to the Taxpayer
The report shies away from the technical aspect of its recommendation—mainly saying that either way is possible with the right design elements. Instead, the report put its focus on the potential benefits like taxpayer savings and Office of Environmental Management project milestones. Looking at repository construction, DOE estimates it could save ten percent more by going on the separate disposal paths. “A common repository for commercial and DOE-managed HLW and SNF could cost between $29 billion and $96 billion, depending on the geologic host rock selected. Costs for such a repository are estimated assuming all commercial SNF would be emplaced in a single repository, consistent with the 2013 Fee Adequacy Assessment ,” the report said. “A separate repository for some DOE-managed HLW and SNF could cost between $14 billion and $47 billion, depending on the geologic host rock selected. In general, mined repositories in salt and shale without backfill are estimated to be less expensive, and repositories in crystalline rock and clay/shale media with backfill are estimated to be more expensive.”
The report also points to savings at the DOE-EM project sites, where storage and treatment of the HLW and SNF make up a large portion of budgetary concerns. “Potential savings to taxpayers could be significant due to avoided costs for safely storing inventories of immobilized tank waste if a repository for some DOE managed HLW and SNF is available earlier,” the report said. “For some repository concepts that rely primarily on geologic barriers to isolate the waste, additional potential savings could result from simplified treatment and packaging requirements. The resulting savings could be redirected to focus work scope and resources on other high-priority cleanup activities at the three defense HLW sites.”
Similarly, the continued maintenance DOE-managed waste could actually add costs to the project sites, the report said. “Uncertainties about the timing and characteristics of a repository have the potential to add significant costs that could affect the near-term management of DOE-managed HLW and SNF,” the report said. “These potential costs can be divided into three groups: (1) costs associated with extended storage of DOE-managed HLW and SNF at existing sites and/or siting and construction of alternative consolidated storage facilities; (2) programmatic impacts associated with delays in environmental remediation work at DOE-managed sites; and (3) costs associated with waste treatment decisions that the DOE must make in the near future without certain knowledge of the ultimate design and location of the repository.”
While the report does mention potential savings, it does not recognize, however, the difficulty of obtaining the necessary funding to the complete the project, as well as the difficulty in licensing a potential licensing facility with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency. The cost for construction of a repository would be in the tens of billions, a number in a cost-cutting Congressional environment that may prove difficult to obtain. Whereas the Nuclear Waste Policy Act enables the collection of a fee to pay for the construction of a repository, a separate DOE-managed waste repository would need to go into EM’s defense budget, a funding stream that has steadily decreased in recent years.
