Utility perspective on the cost and scheduling of spent fuel storage facilities

The DOE spent fuel policy is reviewed from the utilities standpoint. Response was received from 14 firms mainly concerning operation of a storage facility as a subcontractor for the DOE, and those firms willing to build a facility either sought Federal guarantees on the investment of completely ignored financing. Utilities are apparently very interested in spent fuel storage as outlined by the DOE. However, the author points out that there is a real doubt as to the time of availability of the DOE storage, and alternatives available to the utilities for fuel storage are explored. These consist of modification of existing storage basins, shipment of fuel to a different storage basin, or construction of a new storage facility either at the reactor site or off the original reactor site. All utilities are encouraged to support the government spent fuel policy but not to rely solely on the Federal government for fuel storage if it is needed before the late 1980's. Contingency fuel storage plans should be developed