MRS/IS facility co-located with a repository: preconceptual design and life-cycle cost estimates
R.I. Smith, J.F. Nesbitt
Abstract
Open-access reader
R.I. Smith, J.F. Nesbitt
Abstract
Open-access reader
A program is described to examine the various alternatives for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) and interim storage (IS) of spent nuclear fuel, solidified high-level waste (HLW), and transuranic (TRU) waste until appropriate geologic repository/repositories are available. The objectives of this study are: (1) to develop a preconceptual design for an MRS/IS facility that would become the principal surface facility for a deep geologic repository when the repository is opened, (2) to examine various issues such as transportation of wastes, licensing of the facility, and environmental concerns associated with operation of such a facility, and (3) to estimate the life cycle costs of the facility when operated in response to a set of scenarios which define the quantities and types of waste requiring storage in specific time periods, which generally span the years from 1990 until 2016. The life cycle costs estimated in this study include: the capital expenditures for structures, casks and/or drywells, storage areas and pads, and transfer equipment; the cost of staff labor, supplies, and services; and the incremental cost of transporting the waste materials from the site of origin to the MRS/IS facility. Three scenarios are examined to develop estimates of life cycle costs of the MRS/IS facility. In the first scenario, HLW canisters are stored, starting in 1990, until the co-located repository is opened in the year 1998. Additional reprocessing plants and repositories are placed in service at various intervals. In the second scenario, spent fuel is stored, starting in 1990, because the reprocessing plants are delayed in starting operations by 10 years, but no HLW is stored because the repositories open on schedule. In the third scenario, HLW is stored, starting in 1990, because the repositories are delayed 10 years, but the reprocessing plants open on schedule.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
A program is described to examine the various alternatives for monitored retrievable storage (MRS) and interim storage (IS) of spent nuclear fuel, solidified high-level waste (HLW), and transuranic (TRU) waste until appropriate geologic repository/repositories are available. The objectives of this study are: (1) to develop a preconceptual design for an MRS/IS facility that would become the principal surface facility for a deep geologic repository when the repository is opened, (2) to examine various issues such as transportation of wastes, licensing of the facility, and environmental concerns associated with operation of such a facility, and (3) to estimate the life cycle costs of the facility when operated in response to a set of scenarios which define the quantities and types of waste requiring storage in specific time periods, which generally span the years from 1990 until 2016. The life cycle costs estimated in this study include: the capital expenditures for structures, casks and/or drywells, storage areas and pads, and transfer equipment; the cost of staff labor, supplies, and services; and the incremental cost of transporting the waste materials from the site of origin to the MRS/IS facility. Three scenarios are examined to develop estimates of life cycle costs of the MRS/IS facility. In the first scenario, HLW canisters are stored, starting in 1990, until the co-located repository is opened in the year 1998. Additional reprocessing plants and repositories are placed in service at various intervals. In the second scenario, spent fuel is stored, starting in 1990, because the reprocessing plants are delayed in starting operations by 10 years, but no HLW is stored because the repositories open on schedule. In the third scenario, HLW is stored, starting in 1990, because the repositories are delayed 10 years, but the reprocessing plants open on schedule.
Key concepts: Spent nuclear fuel, Interim, Radioactive waste, Waste management, Capital cost, High-level waste, Environmental science, Nuclear fuel cycle