Transcript Update on WCS` Plans for Consolidated Interim Storage of Used

Betsy Madru
VP Government Affairs
Update on WCS’ Plans for Consolidated
Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel
WCS Current Facilities
Byproduct
Facility
LSA Pad
Hazardous
Waste
Landfill Federal Facility
Treatment
Federal
Byproduct
FacilitiesFacility
Facility
Compact Facility
Hazardous Waste
Landfill
Compact
Facility
Administration Buildings and
Treatment Facility
2
Disposal and Service Capabilities
WCS provides the most comprehensive, full service, and complete Radioactive and
Hazardous Waste Services in the Nation.
Commercial Waste
•
In- and Out-of-Compact
Class A, B, and C LLRW
Federal Waste
•
Transportation
•
•
3 state-of-the-art
Type B Casks
2 Type A Casks
Federal Class A, B, and
C LLRW and MLLRW
Low Activity
•
Accepts LLRW up to
10% of the Class A limit
in RCRA/TSCA landfill
Processing
•
Dewatering, Sorting,
Stabilization,
Repackaging, etc.
Storage
•
•
GTCC, TRU, Sealed
Sources, MLLRW
WIPP Program
3
Compact Waste Facility
Federal Waste Facility
Comparison of LLW
Disposal Designs
6
WCS Landfill Design
Andrews, TX
• Multi-layered cover system
up to 45 feet thick
WCS Landfill Liner Design
• Depth to waste at least 25
feet below surface
40 ft
• 9 ft. liner system on top of
red bed clay which is less
permeable to water than
concrete and 600 feet thick
• Closest measurable water
225 feet
WCS Design
60 ft
Legend
Undisturbed Ground
Clay Liner (10-9 cm/s H.C.)
Clay Liner (10-7 cm/s H.C.)
Protective Soil/Sand
Geosynthetic Liner
Concrete Liner
Low Level Waste
Leveling Fill
Biointrusion Layer
Drainage Layer
Evapotranspiration Layer
7
WCS CWF – Native Clay
Compact Disposal Facility
8
CWF During Construction
9
Clive, UT Site
(Previous Industry Standard for Class A)
Class A waste disposed in lifts, and down blended
Class B waste disposed in non-reinforced concrete
culverts and covered in sand
10
Barnwell Facility
(Previous Industry Standard for Class B/C)
11
WCS Compact Facility
(New Industry Standard)
12
CIS – 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
• Initial SAR will include selected AREVA NUHOMS® and NAC
International storage systems which will prioritize shutdown sites
– Additional systems and sites to be added in future License Amendments
– Storage of used fuel from over 10 shutdown/decommissioned nuclear
power plants will fit in Phase 1
• Allows flexibility to transition beyond storage of fuel from currently
decommissioned reactors
• License for 40 years with multiple renewals of up to 20 years each
• Ongoing discussions with DOE and the U.S. Congress on how to
integrate the availability of an interim storage facility into the national
strategy for used nuclear fuel management
13
Timeline
• February 2015 – filed the notice of intent
• Currently – meetings with interested parties
and legislative members
• April 2016 – file license application
• June 2019 – NRC issues license
– Assumes a three year review period
• September 2019 – Construction begins
• December 2020 – Operations begin
14
License Application
• WCS has the lead role in preparing the license application, with support
from AREVA and NAC
• License application for Private Fuel Storage (PFS) that was approved by
the NRC provides a template
• A Safety Analysis Report for the DOE following the NRC Standard
Review Plan (NUREG-1567) for a generic CISF has already been
prepared by AREVA
• SAR will be prepared for selected AREVA NUHOMS® and NAC systems
• To ensure lowest cost/risk/schedule duration in the licensing process,
the initial SAR will only include systems that:
– Are currently licensed and in service
– Are deployed or will be deployed at shutdown reactor sites
• Additional systems to be added in future license amendments
15
Initial License Application
• Priority on currently licensed systems for shutdown sites:
NAC International
 Maine Yankee
 Connecticut Yankee
 Yankee Rowe
 La Crosse
 Zion
AREVA NUHOMS®
 Rancho Seco
 SONGS Unit 1
 Millstone Unit 1
 Oyster Creek* (S/D
scheduled 2019)
Indicates a “stranded” (ISFSI only) site
identified in the 2012 Final Report of the
“Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s
Nuclear Future” (BRC)
* Fuel Burned less than 45 GWd/MTU
Initial License Application will cover ~80% of UNF and GTCC at BRC “Stranded” Site
16
Consolidated Interim Storage:
Industry Benefits
• Availability of a permanent geological repository is projected
to take decades and faces significant local and state
acceptance challenges
• Availability of consolidated storage facility offers flexibility for
DOE to take title to and efficiently manage UNF
• Successful demonstration of transportation, licensing, and
public consent processes will increase public confidence in the
nuclear industry
– Public is concerned over “stranded” UNF at decommissioned sites
– Polls show the unresolved UNF management issue remains a vulnerability for
the nuclear industry
WCS CISF Project Provides a Way Forward to Deliver a Near-Term, Economically
Viable Option for Consolidated Interim Used Fuel Management while a Permanent
Disposal Solution Continues to be Developed
17
Proposed CISF Site Overview
18
18
Expansion of an Existing Radioactive
Waste Facility – Not a “Greenfield” Site
Aerial Photo of LLRW Facilities
• Site includes ~14,000 acres
(~23 square miles)
– Includes Compact LLW,
Federal LLW, and RCRA
Landfills and Storage and
Processing Facility for LLW
• Licensed by Texas as an
Agreement State
• Rail access, irradiated
hardware, large
components, and large
scale D&D project services
currently provided
19
Location of CISF
CISF will occupy ~320 acres or only 2.3% of the 14,000 acre site
20 20
Pad Layout for CISF
21
View of Deployed Systems for
Phase 1 Pad
22
WCS has Proven Programs and Infrastructure
for Managing Radioactive Materials
• WCS currently operates the most robust LLW
disposal facility in the U.S.
• LLW is put into Modular Concrete Canisters,
grouted and then placed into the landfill
• Operations include irradiated hardware with
receipts as high as 20,000 rem/hr on contact, but
a collective dose of only 50 mrem for disposal
• Radiation safety, environmental monitoring,
security and other functions are ongoing
23
Compact Waste Facility
24
Thorough Environmental
Characterization
• Environmental Impacts have
been extensively analyzed in
the region
– NRC prepared an EIS for
URENCO USA
– TCEQ conducted ER
supporting issuance of LLW
and Storage licenses
• WCS approach allows addition
of new storage systems as
amendments, but ensures
cumulative environmental
impacts are analyzed
25
Strong Local and State
Support
• WCS initiated discussions with Andrews County, Texas for support to
site the CISF
• WCS underscored it would proceed only with the support of the local
community
• Andrews County resolution endorsing the project passed
unanimously on January 20, 2015
• Texas Radiation Advisory Board issued a Sept. 2014 position paper
strongly recommending Texas position to itself to host the first CISF
in the U.S.
• Enthusiastic support from Texas’ U.S. House and Senate delegation
and the Governor’s office
PFS showed that broad consent (i.e., state level and not just local level
support) is critical for project success
26
Blue Ribbon Solution
• The Blue Ribbon Commission’s report in 2012
recommended a consent-based CISF
• Allows the federal government (DOE) to take
title to UNF and remove it from nuclear power
plants (“stranded” fuel at shut-down plants
should be a priority)
• WCS proposed CISF is an “outside the
beltway” idea that requires no federal funding
to start
27
Drives Progress Toward a
Permanent Repository Solution
• The WCS CISF does not compete against a
permanent repository
– Over 70,000 MTHM generated to date
– WCS CISF only licensing 40,000 MTHM
– Still need a permanent solution for the industry
• Allows transportation system to be developed
and demonstrated
• Easier to prepare fuel for final repository disposal
at an active CISF instead of at a shutdown reactor
site
CIS is a Complement to rather than a Competitor against Permanent
Geological Disposal
28
WCS Offers Most Realistic
and Cost-Effective Solution
• Straightforward approach of only including already licensed and
deployed systems in the initial License Application greatly reduces
cost & risk of licensing
• Expansion of an existing radioactive waste facility (vs. a “greenfield”
site) greatly reduces cost & risk of licensing, development and
construction
• Consolidation of multiple “stranded” ISFSIs into one CISF will save
licensing, aging management, and security costs and allow for reuse of decommissioned reactor sites
• Federal expenditures for transportation and storage will result in
progress instead of just studies
• Opportunity to reduce taxpayer liabilities and payments owed from
DOE’s partial breach of contracts with UNF title-holders
29
What Does WCS Need?
• Legislation enabling the DOE to take title to UNF and utilize portions
of the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for interim storage services
– WCS is willing to start the licensing process with no federal funding,
but will need certainty of funding for construction and operation
• Industry support for development of interim storage capability and
supporting transportation infrastructure
– Engage in development of supportive industry policy positions (NEI)
– Engage Congressional stakeholders to advance meaningful UNF
management policy and enable opportunities for private storage
solutions
• DOE initiative on transportation of used fuel required to facilitate
storage commencing in December 2020
30
Summary
• WCS project is consistent with the BRC’s recommendations
regarding need for consolidated interim storage and consentbased licensing
• WCS, AREVA, and NAC have the qualifications and capabilities
to license, construct, and operate the facility
• License Application to be submitted by April 2016 will cover
~80% of UNF and GTCC at BRC “Stranded” Sites
• Site is environmentally well-characterized, enjoys broad local,
state level and congressional support, and already has robust
infrastructure that supports operating LLW facilities
• A complement to and not a competitor against a permanent
geological repository
• See the website www.WCSstorage.com for updates
31