spent nuclear fuel – what now?• storing spent nuclear fuel in dry storage began in the...

Spent Nuclear Fuel – What Now?(Yucca Mountain, the Blue Ribbon Commission,

Waste Confidence and more)Waste Confidence and more)

a generation ahead by design

By: Doug WeaverBy: Doug WeaverVice President, Licensing and Regulatory AffairsHoltec International

Holtec International World Headquarters

Jupiter, Florida, U.S.A.

November 27, 2012

Commercial In Confidence

Nuclear Power Division


• Wet spent fuel storage systems Holtec’s NPD is a “Fuel-Centric” p g y

• Wet capacity expansion in fuel pools

• Dry spent fuel storage and transportation systems and services

Organization

• Turnkey dry and wet storage services– Dry storage services include civil/architectural design, site construction, supply of

systems, and fuel loading

H t h d l i t t l l t• Heat exchanger and pressure vessel equipment to nuclear power plants

• Consulting services to nuclear power plant for design and operations

2


The Nation’s Strategy for Disposing of Spent Nuclear Fuel


• The Past……The Past……

• ……………...The Present………

• ……………………………………The Future

3


1950’s – No Time to Worry about Spent Fuel


1955 NAVAHO missileU.S. Atomic bomb test –

Bikini Atoll, July 1946

1955 – NAVAHO missile

Soviet military parade

through Red Square,

circa 1953

44


1st Nuclear Waste Repository – The Sea


The “Gem,” a ship chartered by the UK Atomic Energy Authority dumps barrels

of low and intermediate level waste in the AtlanticAtlantic

The Russian tanker “Amur” dumpingThe Russian tanker Amur” dumping liquid radioactive waste in the Barents

Sea

55


Fuel Cycle – What it Used to Mean


W hWe can reprocess the spent fuel to re-use the uranium and store the remaining waste in a

t d dpermanent underground repository!

66


The First U.S. Attempt at a Waste Repository


In 1970, the AEC tentatively selected a nuclear waste repository site in salt deposits near Lyons Kansas

Radwaste cask being lowered down the shaft to a specially designed trailer

near Lyons, Kansas

p y g

The casks were placed in 12 foot deep stainless steel lined holes in the salt

77

stainless steel lined holes in the salt mine floor


1977 – The End of Reprocessing


• Executive order signed by President Carter on April 7, 1977, banned reprocessing in the U.S.

• Driven by concerns over lif ti t d thproliferation, cost, and the

environment

• Lack of resolution on spent fuelLack of resolution on spent fuel disposal eroded public confidence

88


1982 – Nuclear Waste Policy Act


• Signed into law by President Reagan on January 7, 1983

• Established a policy for• Established a policy for interim and permanent storage of high-level nuclear

twaste

• Required DOE to propose, and NRC to license aand NRC to license, a repository on each side of the Mississippi River

99


Not In My Backyard!


DOE’s lack of communication led to a “Not In My Backyard” response in some candidate localitiesy p

USGS scientists conducted

1010

hydraulic and tracer tests to characterize bedrock at New Hampshire candidate sites


1987 – Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amended


Aerial view of Yucca Mountain

• Congress selected Yucca Mountain for site characterization

• Twenty five years and $11 Billion l t DOE t k diff tlater, DOE takes a different course

1111

Entrance into Yucca Mountain


Evolution of the Dry Storage Industry


• Storing spent nuclear fuel in dry storage began in the mid-1980’s in the U S d d t l t t f ti d d l tU.S. and underwent a complete transformation a decade later

• The first generation of dry casks were storage-only or transport-only devices. The storage-only casks came in two types - metal and concrete g y yp

• Then came the 1990’s when the U.S. DOE began to realize that storage pads across the country would be loaded with tons of spent nuclear fuel in storage only devicesin storage-only devices

• In 1992, the DOE issued its long planned multi-purpose canister (MPC) specification, setting down requirements on welded canisters to make them suitable for on-site storage, off-site transport, and eventually, permanent disposal in a repository

• At present, virtually all U.S. plants are loading dual-purpose (storage and

12

At present, virtually all U.S. plants are loading dual purpose (storage and transport) canisters


Typical Horizontal and Vertical Ventilated Modules


13

Horizontal Storage Vertical Storage


Canister Transfer


14Vertical Module Horizontal Module


Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facilities


• Surry Power Station receivedSurry Power Station received the first ISFSI license in 1986

• ISFSIs were initially licensed for 20 years

• The NRC subsequently authorized 40 year extensionsauthorized 40 year extensions for two ISFSI sites

• Currently, 75 ISFSIs have beenSurry Power Station’s

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

Currently, 75 ISFSIs have been approved, using 15 different cask designs, 8 of which are certified for transportation

1515

certified for transportation


Used Nuclear Fuel Storage - The NumbersJune 2012


• Current used fuel inventory y– Approximately 68,600 MTU– Increases 2 - 2.4k MTU annually

• Current ISFSI storage g– Approximately 19,200 MTU– 1,613 casks/canisters loaded– 58 Operating ISFSIs

• Projections for 2020– Estimating 88,000 MTU total– Estimating 31,000 MTU at ISFSI– 3,000 casks/canisters loaded– Fuel from 119 reactors– At 76 ISFSIs (all plant sites plus

Morris and INEL)

16

Morris and INEL)


Yucca Mountain Timeline

a generation ahead by design1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA)

1987 NWPA amended – Site characterization narrowed to Yucca Mountain

2002 Yucca Mountain Development Actcompletes site characterization begins licensing

1998 contractual deadline for DOE waste acceptance

completes site characterization, begins licensing

2004, DOE misses commitment date forLicense Application (LA), initiates changes

June 2008 DOE submits LA

Feb. 2010 NRC staff i A dquestions on LA answered

17

Oct. 2010 Project Terminated


Yucca Mountain 2010


• February: DOE budget request zeros out funding for the project

• March: DOE files motion with NRC Licensing Board (ASLB) to withdraw License Application (LA)

M h th h J M lti l t k h ld ti t• March through June: Multiple stakeholders oppose motion to withdraw before ASLB and in U.S. Court of Appeals

• June: ASLB rules DOE does not have legal authority to withdraw LAg y

• June - December: NRC Commissioners consider review of ASLB ruling, but have yet to issue a decision while courts await final agency actionaction

• October: DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management “ceases to exist”, all project records turned over to DOE Office of

18

Legacy Management

• October: NRC initiates “orderly closeout” of LA review


Yucca Mountain 2011 to present


• South Carolina, Washington, and the National Association of R l t Utilit C i i (NARUC) fil itRegulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) file suit.

• July 2011 - Court tosses lawsuit saying it is premature because the NRC has not issued its final ruling. g

• September 2011 - NRC deadlocked on final decision 2-2.

• August 2012 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia g ppCircuit will wait to see what funds Congress appropriates in its latest round of spending bills. But the court signaled that unless Congress specifically says that the project should not be funded, it is likely to rule against the commission.

• September 2012 – Continuing Resolution does not discuss Yucca.

19

• 2013 ??


Waste Confidence Rule Initiation (10 CFR 51.23)


• Before the early 1980’s the NRC did not look at the back end of the fuel l th t f l di l i h id i E i t lcycle—the spent fuel disposal issue—when considering Environmental

Impact Statements for new reactor license applications,

• That changed as a result of litigation, and the NRC initiated a g g ,rulemaking to assess generically the degree of assurance that radioactive waste can be safely stored and managed, and eventually disposed of, and

• This became known as the waste confidence rulemaking, and it provides generic findings pertinent to environmental analyses related to power reactor licensingreactor licensing

20


Waste Confidence Rule Assessment


The first waste confidence decision was issued in 1984. In this initial waste confidence assessment, the Commission found:R bl th t f di l f hi h l l t d t• Reasonable assurance that safe disposal of high-level waste and spent fuel in a geologic repository is technically feasible,

• That repository capacity will eventually be available,p y p y y ,

• That high-level waste and spent fuel will be safely managed until repository capacity is available,

• That spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for extended periods, and

• That spent fuel storage will be available as needed

21

• That spent fuel storage will be available as needed


Waste Confidence Rule Revisited


• Reaffirmed by the Commission in 2005Reaffirmed by the Commission in 2005

• Reasonable assurance that a geologic repository is feasible and will be available by 2025and will be available by 2025

• Spent fuel will be managed safely until a repository is available

• Spent fuel can be safely stored onsite without significant environmental impact for an extended periodp p

• Onsite or offsite storage capacity will be available, if necessary

2222

• Decision is valid for both existing and future reactors


Waste Confidence 2010 - 2012


• Final Waste Confidence decision published in Federal RegisterFinal Waste Confidence decision published in Federal Register December 23, 2010

– Spent fuel can be safely stored up to 60 years beyond licensed life of reactor (including renewals)

– Geologic repository will be available when necessary

• NRC immediately sued by several States challenging the d i idecision.

• On June 8, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the NRC's rules for the temporary storage p y gand permanent disposal of nuclear waste stood in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

23


Waste Confidence Now


• August 2012 - NRC will not issue licences for US nuclear plantsAugust 2012 NRC will not issue licences for US nuclear plants - including those for new construction and life extension - until the NRC addresses a court decision on waste confidence. However, licensing activities will continue as normal.

• The NRC has conservatively assumed that ISFSI license renewals are also impacted – this means the Calvert Cliffs license renewal is held uplicense renewal is held up.

• September 2012 NRC will develop an environmental impact decision and a revised waste confidence rule on the temporary t f tilit t l f l th i i id istorage of utility spent nuclear fuel, the commission said in a

directive it issued to agency staff Thursday.

• The EIS and new rule are to be completed within 24 months.

24

p


Blue Ribbon Commission


• January 2010 - At the direction of President Obama, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established the Blue Ribbon Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and to provide recommendations for de eloping a safe long term sol tion torecommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

• Three subcommittees– Reactor and Fuel Cycle Technology– Transportation and Storage– DisposalDisposal

• Final report issued in January 2012

• DOE implementation plan due July 2012 (not issued)

25

DOE implementation plan due July 2012 (not issued)


Blue Ribbon Commission Selected Recommendations


• Consent-based approach to siting nuclear waste facilities

• A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program with the authority & resources to succeed

• Access to the nuclear waste fund

• Prompt efforts to develop geologic disposal facilities

• Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities

• Prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclearPrepare for the eventual large scale transport of spent nuclear fuel to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available

Support for continued U S innovation in nuclear energy

26

• Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development


Private Fuel Storage Facility


NRC approved a license to build a large ISFSI on the Goshute Indian pp gReservation in Skull Valley, Utah

2727


Private Fuel Storage Facility


The proposed spent fuel storage facility is designed to store 4,000 spent fuel k f th lif f th 20 40 li til t it icasks for the life of the 20-40 year license, or until a permanent repository is

completed

2828


Holtec’s Dry Storage & Transport Systems


• HI-STORM UMAX System licensed components:

– HI-STORM

HI‐STAR 190Transport Cask

(Offsite Transport)HI STORM VVM

– MPC-37HI‐TRAC VWTransfer Cask

– HI-TRAC VW*

• HI-STAR 190 Transport Package

(Onsite Transfer/Transport)

MPC‐37 Transport Package*FW – Flood and Wind

*VW – Variable Weight

MPC 37Multi‐Purpose

Canister(Storage/Transport)

HI‐STORM UMAXStorage Cask

(Underground Interim Storage)

2929

Storage)Purpose-specific casks allow for optimized transfer, storage,

and transport of the canisterized spent fuel


Holtec UMAX (Underground Maximum) Interim Storage Solution


30


Constituent Parts of the VVM


• Closure Lid

• Cavity Enclosure Container (CEC)

• Divider Shell

31


MPC BEING LOWERED INTO THE VVM (continued)


32


The Need for a New Directionin Waste Management


The United States went fromThe United States went from Pearl Harbor to D-Day in 30 months

President Reagan signed the NWPAalmost 30 years ago. What have we

achieved?

3333


Beyond Fukushima


• Shattered public confidence

• Fear of Beyond Design Basis

• We will never look at a fuel pool the same way again

D t ti• Dry storage scrutiny

• Clean out fuel pools mandate?

N it i th th f ll i ti• Necessity is the mother of all inventions

34


Holtec Small Modular Reactor


35


SMR, LLC


• Wholly owned subsidiary of Holtec International

• Small modular reactor (SMR) engineered to provide an inherently safe source of steam or electric energy

• Uses HI-SMUR technology gyby Holtec International

• Inherently Safe; Modular;

36

yUnderground Reactor HI-SMUR 140


SMR, LLC


• Holtec’s reactor is designed to be safe, secure, and economical.

• The same design approach that provides inherent safety (relying on passive y ( y g pcooling systems) also makes the reactor economicaleconomical.

• Security is built into the design (e g underground)

37

design (e.g., underground)HI-SMUR 140


Final Thoughts


• The Federal Government has to be part of any spent fuelThe Federal Government has to be part of any spent fuel solution

• Significant change is needed for a successful wasteSignificant change is needed for a successful waste management program

• The Administration needs to commit to a plan and executep

• Holtec is currently licensing technology that could be part of a centralized interim storage solutiong

3838

spent nuclear fuel – what now?• storing spent nuclear fuel in dry storage began in the...

Documents