By Nancy Spring, Senior Editor

In late August, the Kewaunee nuclear power plant began storing spent nuclear fuel in dry casks on its 900-acre site about 35 miles southeast of Green Bay, Wisc. With no more room for storage inside, workers had to move spent fuel into two dry casks that were transferred to concrete vaults.

Kewaunee joins dozens of nuclear power plants in the U.S. that are now storing spent fuel on site in dry storage—with nowhere to go for the long-term.

Spent nuclear fuel at U.S. nuclear power plants is stored primarily in water-filled pools and Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved dry casks, ready to move to a permanent repository for nuclear waste. The problem is, we’re at an impasse on where that will be now that the Obama administration has made it clear Yucca Mountain is no longer an option and as yet, there is no clear definition of what the new policy will be.

What are the alternatives to geologic storage? A recent report written by university nuclear experts has defined five alternatives for spent nuclear fuel management.

‘Plan D’ for Spent Fuel documents consensus reached at a workshop organized by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign earlier this year on how to revise U.S. management of spent nuclear fuel. Organized by the university’s Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security, the workshop attracted participants from nuclear engineering programs at seven Midwestern universities.

According to the report, Plan A is reprocessing spent fuel for use in breeder reactors, Plan B is deep burial right after removal from pool storage, Plan C is actinide burning to reduce the deep underground space required, Plan D (after which the report is named) is extended dry cask storage until it becomes clear if reprocessing will precede permanent disposal, and Plan E is building no more nuclear reactors and abandoning reprocessing.

The authors conclude that Plan D is the best choice, and in essence, we are already implementing that plan. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as of November 2008, 50 U.S. plants have built onsite dry storage.

It’s not an inexpensive option, though. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates a cost of between $10 million and $20 million to build the dry storage facility and make necessary plant modifications, with annual operational costs running from $5 million to $7 million. Dry storage has already cost the nuclear industry about $2.5 billion.

However, there are several compelling reasons for formally adopting Plan D, and the sooner the better, say the report’s authors. Spent fuel is stranded at inoperative reactor sites, which prevents them from decommissioning. Without an incentive to adopt dry cask storage at reactor sites, utilities will densely pack wet pool storage, which “presents more difficulties in recovering from some forms of sabotage.” A better definition of spent nuclear fuel management would help focus R&D dollars. Because of the way things stand today, legal impediments in many states prevent new reactor siting.

And perhaps most compelling of all, the U.S. is losing lawsuits brought against it for breaching its contracts with nuclear plant operators to take title to spent fuel.

As mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Department of Energy entered into standard contracts with nuclear plant owners under which the owners would pay the DOE one tenth of a cent for each kWh of electricity generated in return for a guarantee that the government would collect spent nuclear fuel and assume full responsibility for it by January 1998. Nuclear utilities have paid the DOE almost $30 billion so far—and filed more than 70 lawsuits against the DOE for nonperformance.

Some of the utilities filing suit have been awarded costs for on-site storage, but the monies have yet to be paid. ‘Plan D’ says the government’s potential liability for continued onsite spent fuel storage through 2020 is approximately $11 billion.

One area where the ‘Plan D’ report makes very constructive contributions to the discussion of future spent fuel management policy is in its suggested financial programs. Not only have the authors provided solid scientific reasons for their conclusions, they have developed ways to pay for them.

For instance, the report calls for setting up regulated escrow funds for utilities to draw on to meet the costs of on-site management of dry casks. Providing financial incentives for states to agree to have spent fuel shipped from an inoperative reactor site in one state to an operating reactor in a neighboring state is also recommended. And if the federal government doesn’t license long-term spent fuel management facilities in a timely manner, “consider turning this task over to a tightly regulated corporation set up for this purpose.”

Not surprisingly, many experts think ‘Plan D’ would make an excellent jumping-off point for the blue ribbon panel the DOE is expected to convene to address U.S. nuclear waste policy post-Yucca Mountain. In fact, the report’s authors interviewed staff members of Congress for input for their report.

When the government decides to redefine its spent nuclear fuel policy, hopefully it will turn to ‘Plan D’ to begin the discussion instead of spending time and money doing what these experts have quite elegantly done. Combine that with what we can learn from the practical experience of other countries such as France and we could arrive at a clear, intelligent roadmap for the future of our nuclear power industry.