Post on 14-Apr-2018
Solving the Nuclear Waste
Storage Dilemma
Thursday, September 3, 2015National Conference of State Legislatures
For audio, 1 (415) 655-0059; access code 210-067-427
Presenters
Everett L. Redmond II Betsy MadruJoy Russell
Presenter
Everett L. Redmond IISenior Director, Fuel Cycle and Technology Policy, Nuclear Energy Institute
Used Fuel ManagementWhere are we and how did we get here?
Everett L Redmond II, Ph.D.Nuclear Energy Institute
September 3, 2015
4
NEI Mission
• To foster the beneficial uses of nuclear technology before Congress, the White House and executive branch agencies, federal regulators, and state policy forums; proactively communicating accurate and timely information; and provide a unified industry voice on the global importance of nuclear energy and nuclear technology
5
• All U.S. nuclear utilities• International nuclear utilities• NSSS and major component vendors• Architect/engineering firms• Radiopharmaceutical manufacturers• Fuel suppliers• Universities• Labor unions• Law firms
NEI MembershipOver 350 Members in 17 Countries
6
What Will We Dowith Nuclear Waste?
• Decisions to build new nuclear plants will turn on electricity generation fundamentals, not whether a particular used fuel facility is successful.
• We must, however, have a plausible, durable policy and plan to manage used fuel responsibly including storage and disposal in a deep geologic repository
7
Deep Geologic Repository
• Yucca Mountain: Nye County, NV
• Waste Isolation Pilot Plant: Carlsbad, NM
8
Used Nuclear Fuel in Storage in the U.S.December 2014
• Used fuel inventory- 74,258 MTU (pools and casks)- Increases ~2000 MTU annually or
less than 180 casks per year
• ISFSI* storage - 22,233 MTU (casks)- 2079 casks/modules loaded- 65 Operating ISFSIs
*ISFSI = Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
9
Dry Storage Systems
10
Vertical Storage Cask Horizontal Storage Module
11
Shutdown Sites Without An Operating Reactor
• California- Humboldt Bay*- Rancho Seco*- San Onofre
• Colorado- Ft. St. Vrain
• Connecticut- Connecticut Yankee*
• Florida- Crystal River
• Illinois- Zion*
• Maine- Maine Yankee*
• Massachusetts- Yankee Rowe*
• Michigan- Big Rock Point*
• Oregon- Trojan*
• Vermont- Vermont Yankee
• Wisconsin- LaCrosse*- Kewaunee
Humboldt Bay
Rancho Seco
Trojan
* total of 248 used fuel casks and 11 GTCC casks at these sites
12
Yucca Mountain Timeline1982 - Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)
1987 - NWPA amended – Site study narrowed to Yucca Mountain
2002 - Yucca Mountain Development Act – licensing begins
1998 - contractual deadline for DOE waste acceptance
2004 - DOE misses License Application (LA) commitment, initiates changes
2008 November - DOE submits LA
2010 February - NRC staff questions on LA answered
2010 October - DOE Terminates Project13
1980 2000199519901985 201520102005
2010 August - NRC issues Vol. 1 of Safety Evaluation (SER)
2011 Sept. - NRC suspends licensing process
2013 Aug. - Court orders license restart
2015 Jan.
NRC
completes
SER
Impact of Lack of Federal Program
• Challenges to NRC regulations
• Used fuel continues to accumulate at reactor sites – safely and securely managed
• Lack of confidence in federal government
• U.S. has lost leadership in international community
14
Who Pays?
• Rate payers - one mill/kWh - one tenth of a cent/kWh -
adjustable
- $750 million per year prior to 2014
- Nuclear Waste Fund – more than $35 billion –investment income more than $1 billion per year
• All taxpayers- Payments from taxpayer funded Judgment Fund
for lawsuits resulting from failure to accept used fuel beginning in 1998
15
Taxpayers Paying Billions For Federal Government’s Failure to Accept Used Nuclear Fuel
• $4.5 Billion paid from taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund as of September 2014 for damages incurred because DOE did not begin accepting used nuclear fuel in 1998
• Liabilities will continue to grow after DOE begins accepting used fuel until backlog eliminated (decades)
• DOE estimates the total taxpayer liability at $27.1 Billion if it begins accepting used fuel in 2021
• Every year of delay in opening a facility will cost the taxpayer an additional $500 million (estimated)
• Taxpayer liabilities not paid from Nuclear Waste Fund
16
Key Used Fuel Events
• Yucca Mountain project suspended 2010
• Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future recommendations January 2012
• DOE Strategy January 2013
• Court ordered NRC to restart review 2013
• Nuclear Waste Fee suspended by Court order, May 2014
• NRC Yucca Mountain Safety Evaluation Report issued January 2015
17
De-Comingling Defense and Civilian Radioactive Waste
• March 2015 - Secretary of Energy recommended, and the President authorized, pursuing a Defense HLW Repository for some defense waste
• DOE’s view: - Yucca Mountain is not workable.- A defense high-level waste repository could be
selected, licensed, and built sooner than a common NWPA repository.
- In parallel, DOE will move forward to address storage and disposal of commercial spent fuel. Consolidated interim storage.
18
Industry Strategy
• New management entity – board and CEO
• Access to the waste fund and fees
• Completion of the Yucca Mountain licensing process
• Consolidated interim storage for commercial used fuel and DOE high-level waste
• Research, development and demonstration on advanced fuel cycles
19
Legislation Introduced• 111th Congress
- Voinovich and Upton on Fedcorp
• 112th Congress- Senator Murkowski – used fuel storage- Senators Feinstein, Alexander, Bingaman, and Murkowski – used
fuel storage in appropriations- Senator Bingaman – Nuclear Waste Administration Act 2013
• 113th Congress- Senators Wyden, Murkowski, Feinstein, and Alexander– Nuclear
Waste Administration Act 2014
• 114th Congress - Senators Murkowski, Cantwell, Alexander and Feinstein—
Nuclear Waste Administration Act 2015- Senate appropriations – used fuel storage
20
The Political Landscape
• Legislation will be considered in both Houses of Congress
• Senate – no deal that does not eliminate Yucca Mountain as an option
• House – no deal that does not include Yucca Mountain
21
Possible Timelines for Yucca Mountain Repository
2028: Yucca Mountain opens -assumes annual average funding of $1.4 billion**
2038: Yucca Mountain opens – assumes a max of $750 million/year funding***
Estimate of total damage awards that will eventually be paid from taxpayer-funded Judgment Fund if acceptance
of used fuel begins on this date (billions)
* Taken from 2014 DOE Audit Report of Nuclear Waste Fund OAS-FS-15-03 – out years estimated assuming $500 million per year increase based on Blue Ribbon Commission Final Report**These dates assume that the land and water rights have been obtained by the time NRC completes its review. Construction will not be permitted to begin until land and water rights are secured.*** Historical maximum appropriation was $576 million
2014 2015 20422021 2028 2038
2042: Yucca Mountain opens – assumes a max of $600 million/year funding***
2015: Yucca Mountain licensing resumes
2014: $4.5 Billion* in damages already paid from Judgment Fund
2038: $35.6
2021: $27.1*
2028: $30.6
2042: $37.6
Funding Options
22
Artist Rendition of a Transport Cask
• Nuclear fuel is transported in strong vault-like containers
- Truck containers weigh 25 to
40 tons
- Rail containers weigh 75 to
125 tons
• Multiple barriers provide “defense in depth protection”
23
Transportation Safety Record• Four decades of safety.
• Over 3,000 shipments in US.- 78% by truck and 22% by rail.
- Transported over 1.7 million miles
• Over 24,000 shipments internationally.- More than 73,000 MTHM SNF/HLW
transported
• No injuries, fatalities or environmental damage as a result of the radioactive nature of the cargo
24
Presenter
Joy RussellVice President Corporate Business Development, Holtec International
a generation ahead by design
Holtec & ELEA, LLC’s Vision for a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility
By: Joy Russell
VP Corporate Business Development
C.I.S.A Partnership of Holtec and ELEA
for Consolidated Interim Storage
a generation ahead by design
Why Consolidated Storage?
Holtec Overview
ELEA Overview
Holtec’s Proposed
Technical Solution
Timeline
Conclusion
28
Contents
a generation ahead by design
29
Some Storage Is In The Most Densely Populated Areas of U.S.
D&D Plant Sites Want to Turn Them Back To Green Fields
Transportation of SNF & HLW is Proven Safe—Thousands of Tons
Radioactivity Decreases Rapidly with Time. Gamma & Heat Decay
Breach of Contracts - DOE Required To Take SNF In 1998
‒ Settlement Fund Will Pay Out $20 Billion by 2020 From Treasury
‒ After 2020 Will Pay $500 Million Per Year Until CIS or Repository
Dispels Arguments There Are No Solutions For SNF
Why Consolidated Interim Storage?
a generation ahead by design
30
Established in USA since 1986
Annual Revenues: Over $500
Million USD
Backlog: 6.0 Billion USD
Over 1000 employees
No history of long-term debt
Self financed company growth –
D&B (5A2)
Power Generation Technologies
61 Patents plus 29 Pending
1,000,000 Square Feet of
Manufacturing-USA
Corporate Technology Center
Marlton, NJ
Headquarters
Jupiter, FL
Turtle Creek, PAOrrvilon, OH
Holtec International Company Overview
a generation ahead by design
31
Heat Transfer Equipment In-pool Spent Fuel Storage Racks
Spent Fuel and Non-Fuel Waste
Dry Storage and Transport Casks
Dry Spent Fuel Loading Equipment Vertical Air Cooled CondensersTechnical and Consulting Services
A Global Leader in Power Generation Technologies
a generation ahead by design
32
101 nuclear plants worldwide rely on Holtec’s dry storage technology
for their storage and transport needs; 59 domestic, 42 international
Holtec’s Worldwide Dry Storage and Transport Experience
a generation ahead by design
Holtec’s Dry Storage &Transport Expertise
Holtec offers a complete line of equipment for dry fuel storage and transportation
101 plants worldwide (59 in the U.S.) are under contract for use of Holtec’s dry storage systems
Over 770 Holtec canisters have been successfully loaded
– This number grows by 70-90 canisters per year
Holtec’s experience includes PFS & Ukraine’s Central Storage
33
a generation ahead by design
34
Who is the EDDY-LEA Alliance?
Alliance of the Cities of Carlsbad &
Hobbs and the Counties of Eddy &
Lea
Formed Under the Local Economic
Development Act (LEDA) for
Economic Development Purposes
in 2006 & to Respond to Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP) Proposal from DOE
ELEA purchased 1,000 acres of
land approximately halfway
between Carlsbad and Hobbs,
N.M. for potential use
a generation ahead by design
Why the ELEA Site?
Land studied extensively during Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) process
Remote location
Geologic stability
Dry area
Infrastructure present, including rail
Preexisting robust scientific and nuclear operations workforce
STRONG CONSENT FROM AREA
35
a generation ahead by design
36
a generation ahead by design
37
R
E
T
R
I
E
V
A
B
L
E
Holtec’s Proposed Technical Solution
HI-STORM UMAX (Holtec International STORage Module Universal
MAXimum security)
Complete physical protection by storing the fuel below grade in
reinforced vertical silos
Corrosion-Resistant
Stainless Steel Spent
Fuel Canister
Steel
Liner
Steel/Concrete
Lid
Reinforced Concrete
Base Mat
Reinforced Concrete
Top Pad
a generation ahead by design
HI-STORM UMAX = Safe & Secure
Safety: Utilizes the sub grade
during storage for superior radiation
protection to workers and public and
to the stored contents from dangers
presented by earthquakes and other
extreme environmental phenomena
such as hurricanes, tornado borne
missiles, earthquakes, tsunamis
Security: The above ground
height of the HI-STORM UMAX is
below waist height making the
facility visibly inconspicuous &
provides a clear, unobstructed view
of the entire facility from any
location38
a generation ahead by design
HI-STORM UMAX ISFSI Location at San Onofre Site
HI-STORM UMAX has already been
constructed at Ameren Missouri's
Callaway Nuclear Plant
In December 2014, Southern
California Edison selected the HI-
STORM UMAX for storing the used
nuclear fuel from the
Decommissioned San Onofre NPP
HI-STORM UMAX was selected
because it is robust, can withstand
the enhanced earthquake
conditions, low sight line, and was
flexible in layout design
ISFSI
Completed HI-STORM UMAX ISFSI at Callaway
HI-STORM UMAX = Economical & Proven
a generation ahead by design
Phase 1 includes design, licensing, construction and operation of the
storage facility as a pilot site to store:
– the entire complement of Holtec canisters currently deployed at Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) around the country,
– a prospective client, Wolf Creek, which can avail itself of the ELEA CIS
facility without having to establish an onsite ISFSI, and
– all canisters from shutdown plants and near term shutdown plants
(Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Kewaunee, La Crosse, Maine Yankee,
Millstone Unit 1, Oyster Creek, Rancho Seco, SONGS, Trojan, Yankee
Rowe, and Zion).
– Phase 1 includes design, licensing, construction and operation of the storage
facility as a pilot site to store:
Phase 2 includes further expansion of cask contents in HI-STORM
UMAX to include all other canisters deployed at presently operating
ISFSIs in the U.S.40
Approach to Establish the CIS
a generation ahead by design
41
Submit an amendment to the HI-STORM UMAX docket # 72-
1040 that will expand the allowable contents
Submit a site-specific license application for the CIS on the
ELEA site
The ELEA site specific licensing application will invoke the HI-
STORM UMAX FSAR by reference
Approach to Licensing
a generation ahead by design
42
Letter of Intent Submitted to NRC ……….Aug 3, 2015
Pre-Application Meeting with NRC………...Dec 1, 2015
Application Submittal to NRC……………….Jun 1, 2016
Safety Evaluation Report…………………….Oct 30, 2018
License Issued…………………………………Jan 30, 2019
Construction Phase I Begins………………..Apr 1, 2019
Operations Begin……………………………...Apr 1, 2020
Preliminary Licensing & Construction Schedule
a generation ahead by design
43
CIS is a viable short-term solution for SNF
The ELEA NM Site can be made available in Five years
There are no technical impediments
Holtec UMAX System is Certified by the NRC
Benefits to NM are measured in Revenues and Jobs
Conclusions
Presenter
Betsy Madru
Vice President of Government Affairs, Waste Control Specialists
Update on WCS’ Plans for Consolidated Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel
WCS current facilities
4646
Compact Facility
ByproductFacilityHazardous
WasteLandfill
Federal Facility
Treatment Facilities
Compact Facility
Federal Facility
LSA Pad
Hazardous Waste Landfill
Byproduct Facility
Administration Buildings andTreatment Facility
Clive Facility(Previous Industry Standard for Class A)
47
Barnwell Facility(Previous Industry Standard for Class B/C)
48
WCS Compact Facility(New Industry Standard)
49
Compact Waste Facility
Location of ISFSI
51
Project Scope
• Environmental impacts will be analyzed with storage of 40,000 MTHM for 40 years.– 8 separate phases; storage of up to 5,000 MTHM in each phase.
• License includes three NUHOMS storage systems, which cover three decommissioned and seven operating sites.– Discussions underway to include other systems for other sites
• Storage of used fuel from up to 10 decommissioned nuclear power plants (9 locations) will fit in Phase 1.
• License for 40 years with renewals of up to 20 years.• Licensing with NRC has already started.• Discussions with DOE have started on how this could
impact the DOE strategy for used nuclear fuel.
52
Timeline
53
• February 2015 – filed the notice of intent
• Currently – meetings with interested parties, legislative members, NRC pre-application meetings
• April 2016 – file license application
• June 2019 – NRC issues license application– Assumes a three year review period
• September 2019 – Construction begins
• December 2020 – Operations could begin
License Application
• WCS has the lead role in preparing the license application, with support from AREVA.
• First public pre-application meeting is in June.
• License application for Private Fuel Storage that was approved by the NRC provides a template.
• Safety Analysis Report will be prepared for AREVA’S NUHOMS system.
– Additional systems to be added as license amendments.
54
Community Support
• WCS initiated discussions with Andrews County, Texas for support to site a Centralized Interim Storage Facility in the County.
• WCS underscored we were proceeding with the project only with the support of the local community.
• Andrews County resolution passed unanimously on January 20, 2015.
55
No Impact on Yucca
• The WCS facility has no real impact on the debate about a permanent repository.
- Industry has generated 71,780 mtu/date and at a rate of 2,000-3,000 mtu/year, there is still need a permanent solution
• Allows transportation system to be developed and tested.
56
WCS is Budget Friendly
• No up-front federal expenditures for site selection, characterization and licensing.
• Consolidation of multiple sites into one will save licensing and security costs.
• Federal expenditures for transportation and storage will result in progress instead of studies.
• Opportunity to reduce payments from the unappropriated Judgment fund.– Federal government estimates their liability to be
almost $13 billion by 2020.
57
What Does WCS Need?
• WCS is willing to start the process with no federal funding, but needs to be able to be paid for storage along with DOE taking title to the waste for consolidated interim storage.– Legislation or policy clarification
• Industry support for using the waste fund to pay for interim storage.
• DOE to make significant progress in transportation of used fuel so we have something to store in December 2020.
58
59
Questions?
www.WCSstorage.com
Archived WebinarSlides and a recording of today's event will be made available within 5
business days at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=29288.
Register for additional webinars at the address above.
Questions or Comments?Contact Gretchenn DuBois, NCSL
Gretchenn.dubois@ncsl.org, 303-856-1390