United States Government Accountability Office GAO Report to Congressional Requesters August 2012 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage and Other Challenges GAO-12-797 August 2012 SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL Accumulating Quantities at Commercial Reactors Present Storage and Other Challenges Highlights of GAO-12-797, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study The amount of spent fuel stored on-site at commercial nuclear reactors will continue to accumulate—increasing by about 2,000 metric tons per year and Spent nuclear fuel, the used fuel likely more than doubling to about 140,000 metric tons—before it can be moved removed from nuclear reactors, is one off-site, because storage or disposal facilities may take decades to develop. In of the most hazardous substances examining centralized storage or permanent disposal options, GAO found that created by humans. Commercial spent new facilities may take from 15 to 40 years before they are ready to begin fuel is stored at reactor sites; about accepting spent fuel. Once an off-site facility is available, it will take several more 74 percent of it is stored in pools of decades to ship spent fuel to that facility. This situation will be challenging water, and 26 percent has been because by about 2040 most currently operating reactors will have ceased transferred to dry storage casks. The operations, and options for managing spent fuel, if needed to meet United States has no permanent transportation, storage, or disposal requirements, may be limited. disposal site for the nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel Studies show that the key risk posed by spent nuclear fuel involves a release of currently stored in 33 states. radiation that could harm human health or the environment. The highest- consequence event posing such a risk would be a self-sustaining fire in a drained GAO was asked to examine (1) the or partially drained spent fuel pool, resulting in a severe widespread release of amount of spent fuel expected to radiation. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which regulates the accumulate before it can be moved from commercial nuclear reactor sites, nation’s spent nuclear fuel, considers the probability of such an event to be low. (2) the key risks posed by stored spent According to studies GAO reviewed, the probability of such a fire is difficult to fuel and actions to help mitigate these quantify because of the variables affecting whether a fire starts and spreads. risks, and (3) key benefits and Studies show that this low-probability scenario could have high consequences, challenges of moving spent nuclear however, depending on the severity of the radiation release. These fuel out of wet storage and ultimately consequences include widespread contamination, a significant increase in the away from commercial nuclear probability of fatal cancer in the affected population, and the possibility of early reactors. GAO reviewed NRC fatalities. According to studies and NRC officials, mitigating procedures, such as documents and studies on spent fuel’s replacement water to respond to a loss of pool water from an accident or attack, safety and security risks and industry could help prevent a fire. Because a decision on a permanent means of data, interviewed federal and state disposing of spent fuel may not be made for years, NRC officials and others may government officials and need to make interim decisions, which could be informed by past studies on representatives from industry and other stored spent fuel. In response to GAO requests, however, NRC could not easily groups, and visited reactor sites. identify, locate, or access studies it had conducted or commissioned because it does not have an agencywide mechanism to ensure that it can identify and What GAO Recommends locate such classified studies. As a result, GAO had to take a number of steps to identify pertinent studies, including interviewing numerous officials. To help facilitate decisions on storing and disposing of spent nuclear fuel Transferring spent fuel from wet to dry storage offers several key benefits, over the coming decades, GAO including safely storing spent fuel for decades after nuclear reactors retire—until recommends that NRC develop a a permanent solution can be found—and reducing the potential consequences of mechanism for locating all classified a pool fire. Regarding challenges, transferring spent fuel from wet to dry storage studies. NRC generally agreed with the is generally safe, but there are risks to moving it, and accelerating the transfer of findings and the recommendation in spent fuel could increase those risks. In addition, operating activities, such as the report. refueling, inspections, and maintenance, may limit the time frames available for transferring spent fuel from wet to dry storage. Once spent fuel is in dry storage, there are additional challenges, such as costs for repackaging should it be needed. Some industry representatives told GAO that they question whether the cost of overcoming the challenges of accelerating the transfer from wet to dry storage is worth the benefit, particularly considering the low probability of a catastrophic release of radiation. NRC stated that spent fuel is safe in both wet View GAO-12-797. For more information, and dry storage and that accelerating transfer is not necessary given the small contact Gene Aloise at (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]. increase in safety that could be achieved. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 5 Large Quantities of Spent Nuclear Fuel Are Expected to Remain at Commercial Reactor Sites for Decades 19 The Key Risk of Stored Spent Fuel Is Difficult to Quantify, but Some Mitigating Actions Have Been Taken 27 Transfer of Spent Fuel from Wet Storage Offers Benefits but Also Presents Challenges 37 Conclusions 47 Recommendation for Executive Action 47 Agency Comments 47 Appendix I Scope and Methodology 50 Appendix II Selected Other Countries’ Spent Fuel Management Programs 53 Appendix III Accumulation of Commercial Spent Fuel by State over Time 57 Appendix IV Comments from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 59 Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 61 Tables Table 1: Typical Reactor Characteristics and Storage Capacity 22 Table2: Summary of Commercial Nuclear Programs and Spent Fuel Management Programs for Selected Countries 53 Table 3: Cumulative Quantities of Spent Fuel, by State, for 2012, 2027, 2032, 2052, and 2067 57 Figures Figure 1: Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Sites 6 Page i GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Figure 2: Fuel Pellet and Fuel Rod Assembly for a Commercial Nuclear Power Reactor 8 Figure 3: Location of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Pool in a Boiling Water Reactor 10 Figure 4: Spent Nuclear Fuel Pool 11 Figure 5: Canister in a Transfer Cask in a Spent Nuclear Fuel Pool 15 Figure 6: Spent Fuel in Dry Storage 16 Figure 7: Trends in Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Overall and in Wet and Dry Storage 21 Figure 8: Accumulation of Commercial Spent Fuel by State over Time 24 Figure 9: Growth Trend of Total Spent Fuel Compared with Spent Fuel from Decommissioned Reactors 27 Abbreviations DOE Department of Energy EPRI Electric Power Research Institute NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 August 15, 2012 Congressional Requesters Nuclear fuel that has been used and removed from the reactor core of a nuclear power plant—known as spent nuclear fuel—is one of the most hazardous substances created by humans.1 If not properly contained or shielded, the intense radioactivity of spent fuel can cause immediate deaths and environmental contamination and, in lower doses, cause long- term health hazards, such as cancer. Some radioactive components of spent fuel remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years. In the United States, the national inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel amounts to nearly 70,000 metric tons. Concerns were heightened about the vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants to releases of large doses of radiation into surrounding communities after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the earthquake and tsunami that struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant complex in Japan in March 2011. Two federal agencies—the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE)—are primarily responsible for the regulation and disposal of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel. NRC regulates the construction and operation of commercial nuclear power plants and spent fuel repositories, as well as the storage and transportation of spent fuel. DOE is charged with investigating sites for a federal geologic repository to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste from commercial nuclear power plants and some defense activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.2 In 1987, however, Congress amended 1Spent (or used) nuclear fuel can no longer efficiently generate power in a nuclear reactor. However, it is potentially a resource because it can be reprocessed to separate out uranium and plutonium to be used as fuel again in a reactor. Reprocessing, however, still results in nuclear waste that requires disposal. The United States does not reprocess its spent nuclear fuel, and this fuel, when it is accepted for disposal, is considered to be high- level waste as defined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2This report does not address the about 13,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and high- level waste DOE manages, which was primarily generated by the nation’s nuclear weapons program. For example, DOE manages some former commercial spent fuel, such as spent fuel at a reactor at Fort St. Vrain in Colorado. We reported separately on this issue. See GAO, DOE Nuclear Waste: Better Information Needed on Waste Storage at DOE Sites as a Result of the Yucca Mountain Shutdown, GAO-11-230 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 23, 2011). Page 1 GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel the act to direct DOE to focus its efforts only on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In addition, the act authorized DOE to contract with commercial nuclear reactor operators to take custody of their spent nuclear fuel for disposal at the repository beginning in January 1998, but because of a series of delays due to, among other reasons, state and local opposition to the construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository in Nevada and technical complexities, DOE was unable to begin receiving waste by that time.3 Currently, the status of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain is uncertain. DOE and NRC separately suspended their efforts to license this repository in 2010 and 2011, respectively, and several parties have filed a petition in federal court seeking to force NRC to resume the licensing proceeding.4 In April 2011, we reported on the proposed termination of the Yucca Mountain repository and recommended actions to assist future waste management efforts.5 In that report, we suggested that Congress might consider a more predictable funding mechanism and an independent organization, outside DOE, for siting and developing a permanent repository. NRC concurred with the facts in a draft of that report, and DOE strongly disagreed with key facts in the draft and our recommendations. No action has been taken to implement our recommendations. Because it did not take custody of the spent fuel starting in 1998, DOE reports that as of September 2011, 76 lawsuits have been filed against it by utilities to recover claimed damages resulting from the delay. These lawsuits have resulted in a cost to taxpayers of about $1.6 billion from the U.S. Treasury’s judgment fund. DOE estimates that future liabilities will total about an additional $19.1 billion through 2020 and that they may cost about $500 million each year after that.6 Spent nuclear fuel consists of thumbnail-sized pellets of uranium dioxide fitted into 12- to 15-foot hollow metal rods, which are bundled together 3Some technical complexities, such as DOE’s assessment of how heat from the spent nuclear fuel might affect the performance of the repository, became the focus of years of scientific inquiry. 4NRC responded to the parties’ petition by stating that it does not have sufficient appropriated funds to complete action on the license application. On August 3, 2012, the federal court reviewing the parties’ petition issued an order holding the case in abeyance pending updates by the parties on the status of fiscal year 2013 appropriations with respect to the issues presented in the case. 5GAO, Commercial Nuclear Waste: Effects of a Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons Learned, GAO-11-229 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2011). 6These costs are in constant 2011 dollars. Page 2 GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel into assemblies. Operators of commercial nuclear power reactors use two methods to store spent nuclear fuel: wet storage in pools of water or dry storage in steel and concrete casks. When reactor operators first remove spent fuel from a reactor, it is thermally hot and intensely radioactive and must be immersed in deep pools of water, which cools the spent fuel and shields the environment from the spent fuel. As the inventory of spent fuel has grown, reactor operators have increased the number of assemblies stored in the pools—generally 40 feet deep—by replacing existing storage racks with newer racks holding denser arrangements of assemblies. Despite the denser arrangements, which can sometimes hold thousands of assemblies, spent fuel pools have limited capacity. Beginning in the 1980s, reactor operators began to transfer spent fuel to dry cask storage systems to free space in the pools for fuel removed from the reactor. Spent fuel can be transferred to dry storage once it has aged sufficiently to be cooled by passive air ventilation—generally after about 5 years. Dry cask storage typically consists of a stainless steel canister placed inside a larger stainless steel or concrete cask, which isolates it from the environment. Dozens of community action and environmental groups have advocated that reactor operators accelerate the transfer of spent fuel from pools to dry storage cask systems, believing the risks of dry storage are lower than that of wet storage. NRC maintains that spent fuel is safe and secure in both wet and dry storage systems. In light of concerns over the nation’s growing quantities of stored spent nuclear fuel, ongoing security threats, and safety concerns raised by events in Japan, you asked us to review the safety and security of spent fuel. Specifically, our objectives were to examine (1) the amount of spent fuel that is expected to accumulate before it can be moved from commercial nuclear reactor sites, (2) the key safety and security risks posed by spent fuel stored at reactor sites and actions to help mitigate these risks, and (3) key benefits and near- and long-term challenges of transferring spent nuclear fuel out of wet storage and ultimately away from reactor sites. To answer these objectives, we reviewed pertinent NRC documents; analyzed studies on the safety and security of spent fuel; interviewed officials from federal and state regional organizations and representatives from industry, academia, and various community action and environmental Page 3 GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel groups; and visited selected decommissioned and operating reactor sites.7 Specifically, to determine the amount of spent fuel projected to accumulate before it can be moved from individual reactor sites, we obtained a database on spent fuel projections from the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry advocacy organization. We based our estimates for when centralized storage and permanent disposal facilities might become available on assumptions from our November 2009 report and on additional analysis based on reports from various sources, including DOE and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, a nonprofit research entity) on centralized storage and permanent disposal.8 To determine key safety and security risks of spent fuel and potential mitigation actions, we reviewed studies from NRC and other groups, including Sandia National Laboratories, the National Academy of Sciences, and community action groups. We also reviewed NRC requirements addressing the safety and security of spent fuel and directives from the nuclear power industry. We interviewed officials from NRC and DOE and representatives from industry, academia, and various community groups. We visited the Haddam Neck decommissioned reactor site and the Millstone reactor in Connecticut, the Hope Creek and Salem reactors in New Jersey, and the Susquehanna reactor in Pennsylvania, and we spoke with NRC officials and industry representatives about spent fuel storage issues at these sites. To determine the benefits and challenges of transferring spent fuel from wet to dry storage, we reviewed documents from NRC, DOE, industry, and community groups. We also interviewed officials from NRC, DOE, and state regional organizations, and representatives of industry, academia, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future,9 and community groups. Appendix I presents our scope and methodology in more detail. 7Our selection of sites was a judgmental sample based on reactor sites that met specific criteria, including the type of operating reactor, the type of dry storage systems used, and whether the reactor was operating or decommissioned. We found a group of reactors in the Northeast meeting these criteria, enabling us to visit sites in a single 1-week trip. Although our observations on the methods and risks of spent fuel storage are similar at all reactor sites, each site is sufficiently different that our specific observations at one site cannot be generalized to all reactor sites. 8GAO, Nuclear Waste Management: Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential Alternatives, GAO-10-48 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 2009). 9In 2010, the administration directed DOE to establish this Blue Ribbon Commission of recognized experts to study nuclear waste management alternatives. The commission issued a report in January 2012. Page 4 GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel We conducted this performance audit from June 2011 to August 2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Background In the United States, the national inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel amounts to nearly 70,000 metric tons, which is stored at 75 sites in 33 states (see fig. 1). Page 5 GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel Figure 1: Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Sites Note: Of the 75 sites, 65 have currently operating reactors, 7 have decommissioned reactors, 2 have reactors being decommissioned, and 1 site was constructed as a storage pool for spent fuel awaiting reprocessing. Page 6 GAO-12-797 Accumulation of Spent Nuclear Fuel