ncsl task force on energy supplykey points fukushima reactors are stabilized u.s. took immediate...
TRANSCRIPT
NCSL Task Force on Energy Supply
Nuclear Energy Update
Marshall Cohen
Nuclear Energy Institute May 19, 2012
I: “Post Fukushima”
2
Making Safe Nuclear Energy Safer After Fukushima
U.S. Industry Response and Status
3
Key Points
Fukushima reactors are stabilized
U.S. took immediate action to reconfirm
safety and response capability
U.S. companies are installing new
equipment for additional backup safety
Diverse, flexible coping capacity strategy
will meet NRC requirements
Nuclear energy remains vital part of U.S.
electricity portfolio
4
Fukushima Daiichi Today
Damaged reactors stabilized
New cooling systems operating
Decontamination under way
Debris removal continues in preparation for decommissioning
Assessing impact of radiation releases
5
Source: Associated Press
Radiological Impacts in Japan
Significant radiation releases occurred during the
accident, but had little immediate impact on public
health
– Emergency response plans worked to protect
residents near the plant
– Japan, international health studies underway
Residents were evacuated in a manner that reduced
health impacts
No radiation-related consequences beyond Japan
Extensive monitoring of land, water, crops, fish and
livestock will continue
6
U.S. Response to Enhance Safety
Reconfirmed safety of U.S. reactors
immediately after events in Japan
Established factual basis for action through
extensive analysis of the Japan events
Bias for action results in industry
commitments ahead of NRC requirements
Applying lessons learned at all U.S. reactors
7
Specific Actions Taken at U.S. Reactors
More than 300 major pieces of equipment
acquired or ordered
– 66 large portable generators
– 62 diesel-driven pumps
– 59 small load diesel generators
– 13 fire trucks
– 11 portable ventilation units
8
Examples of Additional Actions
Verified that equipment, procedures and
staffing are in place to respond to threats
Verified capability to cope even during a
complete loss of power
Verified each plant‟s capabilities to protect
against floods and fires after earthquakes
Enhanced capability to protect spent fuel
pools against extreme natural events
9
FLEX Provides Additional Safety
FLEX: Industry Strategy for Action
Diverse, flexible coping capacity addresses key
issues:
– Provides coping for extended power loss
– Maintains reactor and used fuel pool cooling
capability
– Protects against extreme external events
Performance-based, all-hazards safety approach
Portable backup equipment provides flexible
response
11
Key Points/Questions
Fukushima reactors are stabilized
U.S. took immediate action to reconfirm
safety and response capability
U.S. companies are installing new
equipment for additional backup safety
Diverse, flexible coping capacity strategy
will meet NRC requirements
Nuclear energy remains vital part of U.S.
electricity portfolio
12
Bisconti Research, Inc. with GfK Roper
35
67 67
46
16 16
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
97
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Fe
b-1
1
Se
p-1
1
% High Safety Rating (5-7) % Low Safety Rating (1-3)
Public Confidence in Safety
13
Industry Outlook
Nuclear energy remains a vital part of U.S. and global electricity portfolio
Demand for electricity will increase 24% by 2035
– Nuclear energy offers the best option for low-carbon, affordable electricity
– U.S. industry is a key in $400 billion global nuclear energy market
Four to eight new reactors operational by 2020
Industry is updating equipment, training and operational procedures to address lessons learned from Fukushima
14
II: Emerging Technologies: Small Reactors
15
Small Reactor Concepts
Come in a range of physical sizes
Cover a wide variety of reactor types
– Water, gas, and liquid metal cooled
– Both fast and slow neutron spectrums
Suitable for a variety of applications
Small Reactors Advance U.S. Policy
Improve Energy Security
Advance our clean energy future
Re-vitalize manufacturing, create jobs
Capture share of global clean energy market
Small Reactor Applications
Modular, scalable or innovative LWR‟s
– NuScale, B&W, Westinghouse, Holtec
Mini, distributed & fuel-cycle applications
– Hyperion, Toshiba, GE Hitachi
HTGR‟s for process heat and hydrogen
– PBMR, AREVA and General Atomics
Timeline to deployment
Small light water designs have most in
common with existing fleet
– Closer fit to 10 CFR 50/52 process
– NRC: more expertise, utilities: more interest
– First deployment by 2020
NGNP-work ongoing to support 2021 use
Metal cooled designs face additional
challenges and most expect post-2020 use
Promise of Small Reactors
Expand nuclear benefits to areas and
applications underserved by large plants
Job creation by reestablishing domestic
manufacturing for global deployment
Growing political support from those
traditionally opposed to nuclear energy
Small Reactors Help Industry Answer Tough Questions
Nuclear is too expensive
– Incremental build offers financing options
Safety & security concerns
– Design in: post 9/11 & Fukushima lessons
Nuclear Waste and non-proliferation
– Some designs include life-of-plant storage
– Some designs can consume used fuel and
surplus weapons material as fuel
Growing State Interest
NARUC SMR resolution
– Presentations at MARC and NARUC in 2010
Alaska‟s nuclear moratorium repealed
– (largely due to interest in small reactors)
NCSL, ALEC briefed on SMRs in 2010
Energy Council briefed in 2011
– Policy Statement Supporting SMRs introduced 2011
Obama Administration Support
FY 2012
– $67 M for SMR Licensing Support
– $125 M for Reactor Concepts R&D (includes $28.7 M for
SMR R&D)
– $49.6 M for NGNP
DoE‟s FY 2013 request
– $65 M for SMR Licensing Support
– House Appropriators increased to $114 M
– Senate Appropriators kept SMRs at $65 M
DOE’s FY 2012 SMR Budget: SMR Licensing Technical Support
Competitive process
Minimum 50% cost share
– “within the merit review process, higher industry cost-share (i.e.,
greater than 50%) will be a rating criterion in evaluating program
solicitations”
Two reactor technology vendors: design, engineering,
testing, analysis and NRC design certification
Two utilities or consortia to develop Combined Operating
License applications
– “10 CFR 50 licensing framework may be considered, if appropriate”
Five-year program cost: $452 million
Challenges
Generic regulatory issues must be resolved
to establish business case:
– Appropriate safety, security, emergency
management, staffing and financial
requirements must be established
– Existing regulatory paradigm must change
Gas and metal cooled designs require
materials and fuels R&D
Licensing Activities
Address generic regulatory issues
Prepare consensus position papers
Regular interactions with NRC staff
Generic Regulatory Issues
NRC Annual Fees
Decommissioning Funding
Pre-Application Engagement
Modularity – Licensing
Price-Anderson (liability)
Control Room Staffing
Defense-in-Depth
Emergency Preparedness
Loss of Large Areas
Risk Informed Licensing
Security
Site Staffing
NEI’s Next Steps
Licensing task force to drive issue
resolution with NRC
Advocate federal small reactor funding
Continue to refine business case
Manage media and public expectations
III: Emerging Technology AP 1000
Enhanced Safety
29
AP 1000
First new design to be certified by NRC
4 are being built in the U.S. – licensed
– Georgia
– South Carolina
More certifications to come
– AREVA
– GE – Hitachi
– Mitsubishi
30
Features of the so-called third-generation reactors:
a standardized, design for each type (AP-1000,
ESBWR, EPR, etc.) to expedite licensing,
reduce capital cost and reduce construction
time,
a simpler and more rugged design, making
them easier to operate and less vulnerable to
operational upsets*
31
higher availability and longer operating life –
typically 60 years, (use of state of the art
technologies and materials)
further reduced possibility of core melt accidents
substantial grace period, so that following
shutdown the plant requires no active
intervention for (typically) 72 hours* .
32
* Traditional reactor safety systems are „active‟ in the sense that they involve electrical or mechanical operation on command. Some engineered systems operate passively, e.g. pressure relief valves. They function without operator control and despite any loss of auxiliary power. Both require parallel redundant systems. Inherent or full passive safety depends only on physical phenomena such as convention, gravity or resistance to high temperatures, not on functioning of engineered components, but these terms are not properly used to characterize whole reactors.
** All new reactors designs certified in the USA have performed or will have to perform an aircraft impact assessment.
resistance to serious damage that would
allow radiological release from an aircraft
impact**
higher burn-up to use fuel more fully and
efficiently and reduced the amount of waste
greater use of burnable absorbers (“poisons”)
to extend fuel life.
33
34
35
36
37
IV: Managing Used Fuel New Developments
38
Key Points
BRC studies were thorough
BRC recommendations are generally
consistent with industry strategy
Broad consensus among major stakeholders
39
Consensus Among Major Stakeholders
National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners (NARUC),
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition (NWSC)
American Public Power Association (APPA)
National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA)
Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 40
Stakeholder Priorities
Support all eight BRC recommendations
Three recommendations should receive
priority
– Securing the waste fee and waste fund
– Consolidated storage
– New management entity
Disposal program necessary
41
When Can Used Fuel Be Moved?
Consolidated storage
– Could be open by 2020
Yucca Mountain Repository
– If restarted, may be open 2030 to 2040
Alternative repository location
– Probably not open until after 2050
42
Consolidated Storage
Basic facility identical to Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation at reactor sites
Licensed under existing NRC regulations
Could be open in 5 to 10 years
– ~2 years to design and prepare application
– ~4 years for NRC review
– ~2 years for construction
43
Legislative Challenges
Significant legislation to reform program
not likely in 2012
Appropriations language may offer a path
forward in near term
What can DOE do within existing
authority?
44
Appropriations
Senate FY13 appropriations bill includes
consolidated storage language
House FY13 appropriations bill is different
Senate language supported by Senators
Alexander, Feinstein, Murkowski, and
Bingaman
45
Senate Consolidated Storage Language
Secretary of Energy authorized for pilot
program for 1 or more facilities
Consent based siting
Congressional approval for agreement
Decommissioned site fuel given priority
Recognizes that used fuel will go to
disposal facility
46
Identifying a Site
Some communities are interested in new
fuel cycle facilities
Community, State, local Indian Tribes must
agree
Financial assistance, compensation, or
incentives
47
DOE Strategy
FY12 appropriations requested DOE
develop strategy to address BRC
recommendations
DOE can and should advance the program
between now and creation of new
management entity
48
49
