Waste Confidence Rule Project Presentation for UM NERS 531
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•248 views
The document summarizes the history and status of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Waste Confidence Rule. It discusses how the rule was first established in 1984 to provide reasonable assurance that nuclear waste can be safely stored, and how it has been updated over time. Most recently in 2012, the US Court of Appeals struck down the NRC's 2010 amendment due to an inadequate environmental impact statement. The NRC is now drafting a new environmental impact statement to resolve issues around long-term nuclear waste storage and inform its Waste Confidence Rule and decision-making.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (12)
Similar to Waste Confidence Rule Project Presentation for UM NERS 531
Similar to Waste Confidence Rule Project Presentation for UM NERS 531 (20)
More from Doug Kripke
More from Doug Kripke (9)
Waste Confidence Rule Project Presentation for UM NERS 531
- 1. The Waste Confidence Rule Doug Kripke
- 2. Overview: Waste Confidence • Definition • History • Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) • Dry Cask Storage of SNF • EIS Conclusions • NRC Next Steps • Impact and Outlook
- 3. Waste Confidence 1. Provide reasonable assurance an offsite disposal solution will be available for SNF by the expiration of the plants’ operating licenses 2. If not, can SNF fuel be stored safely on site beyond the expiration of the plants’ operating license?
- 4. History of Waste Confidence • 1984: NRC establishes Waste Confidence Decision and Rule (10 CFR 51.23) with five key findings 1. Technical feasibility of a geologic repository 2. A geologic repository will be available when needed 3. SNF can be safely managed until geologic repository available 4. SNF can be safely stored at reactor site in used fuel pools for 30 years without significant environmental impacts 5. On or off-site storage for SNF will be made available if required
- 5. History of Waste Confidence • The Rule was updated in 1990, reviewed in 1999, and updated again 2010 with the termination of Yucca Mountain • Dec 2010: on-site storage → 60 years • June 2012: US Court of Appeals strikes down 2010 amendment for inadequate EIS • Aug 2012: NRC suspended issuance of operating licenses and license renewals until Waste confidence rule resolved → currently drafting EIS – “If the licensee of a nuclear power plant…files a sufficient application for renewal of either an operating license or a combined license at least 5 years before the expiration of the existing license, the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined” (“Effect of timely renewal application” NRC 2012)
- 6. History of Waste Confidence (http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/christine-pineda-10-04-2011.pdf)
- 7. (NUREG-1437, 2013, p. 3-92) History of Waste Confidence
- 8. History of Waste Confidence (http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/christine-pineda-10-04-2011.pdf)
- 9. EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 2013, p. 3-33)
- 10. EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
- 11. EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
- 12. EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants – Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) • “Delays in siting a permanent repository, coupled with rapidly filling spent fuel pools at some plants, have led utilities to seek means of continued onsite storage” [NUREG-1437 2013, 3-154] 1) Expanded, re-racked, or consolidated pool storage 2) Aboveground dry storage 3) Longer fuel burn-up to reduce the amount of spent fuel requiring interim storage 4) Shipment of spent fuel to other plants
- 13. AR Interim Spent Fuel Storage Sites (Saling and Fentiman, 2001, p. 71)
- 14. AFR Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations
- 16. Dry Cask Storage
- 17. EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants– Mitigating Actions • “NRC decisions and recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel are ongoing and outside the scope of license renewal” (NUREG- 1437, 2013, 4-177) • “NRC has determined that spent nuclear fuel could be stored onsite safely and with a minimal environmental impact during the license renewal term and the NRC is working on a separate rulemaking and EIS for the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to address the period after the cessation of reactor operations” (NUREG-1427, 2013, 4-221)
- 18. Waste Confidence EIS – Timeframes (NUREG-2157, 2013, p. xxviii)
- 19. Waste Confidence EIS - Conclusions • Minimal amounts of LLW and Mixed Waste caused by the continued storage of spent fuel in spent fuel pools and at-reactor ISFSIs • “The amount of mixed waste generated from the operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pool and ISFSI is expected to be minimal compared to that of an operating reactor” (NUREG-2157, 2013, p. 4-56) • Radiological and non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the management and disposal of mixed waste are expected to be SMALL for all timeframes at both AR and AFR sites (NUREG-2157)
- 20. Waste Confidence EIS - Conclusions • “The environmental risk of the postulated accidents involving continued storage of spent fuel in pools are SMALL, because all important safety structures, systems, and components involved with the fuel storage are designed to withstand these design basis accidents without compromising the safety functions” (NUREG-2157, 2013, p. 4-76) • “All NRC-licensed dry cask storage systems are designed to withstand all postulated design basis accidents (Design Events III and IV) with no loss of safety functions…the environmental impact of the design basis accidents is SMALL” (NUREG-2157, 2013, p. 4-79)
- 21. Waste Confidence EIS - Conclusions (NUREG-2157, 2013, p. 4-91)
- 22. NRC Next Steps • 2014: Complete Waste Confidence EIS Final Report with public comments • 2019: Develop final EIS and final Waste Confidence Decision and Rule
- 23. Waste Confidence Impact and Outlook • “Based on EIA’s analysis of the Waste Confidence Rule and ongoing proceedings, the AEO2013 Reference case assumes that the issuance of new operating licenses will not be affected” (AEO 2013, p. 12) • “Growth in Nuclear generation is outpaced by the increases in generation from natural gas and renewables” (AEO 2013, p. 44) • Nuclear capacity projected to increase by 19.0 GW by 2040 – Power uprates at existing plants: 8.0 GW – New Construction: 11.0 GW • 5.5 GW from Watts Bar Unit 2, Summer Units 2 and 3, and Vogtle Units 3 and 4
- 24. Waste Confidence Impact and Outlook
- 25. Waste Confidence Impact and Outlook
- 26. Thank you for your time! Questions?
Editor's Notes
- I’d like to start out with a definition So waste confidence: “are we confident that we can ultimately handle our nation’s nuclear waste?” 1) how sure are we that an offsite disposal solution will be available for SNF by the expiration of the plant’s operating licenses 2) If we are not sure an offsite disposal solution will be available, how long can SNF be stored safely on site beyond the expiration of the plants’ operating license
- “NRC should have analyzed the environmental consequences of never building a permanent waste repository, and that the discussion of potential leaks or fires at spent fuel pools was inadequate” Feb 2012: NRC issue license SC breaking 30 year drought Expected to take 2 years (finish in 2014), reactors whose license expire during this time will continue to operate (15 reactors)
- - work is anticipating the aging of the nuclear fleet (still ahead of the curve)
- came out with scoping report in March 2013 came out with EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants in June 2013 and currently working on EIS for Waste Confidence Rule and Decision came out with General EIS draft report for the Waste Confidence Rule for public comment in Sept 2013 going through a lot of effort to incorporate public comments (13 public meetings across nation) → higher quality, more informative, ultimately lead to more appropriate decision (60 years?) NEPA Process: National Environmental Policy Act requires an EIS of all federal projects
- Distribution of Tornado strikes
- Socioeconomic Impact on Rural Locations -other considerations: Air Quality and Noise, the Geologic Environment, Water Resources, Ecological Resources, Human Health and Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
- -inventory of all the LLW created from nuclear power plants -LLW isn’t a problem: “There are currently three operating disposal facilities in the United States that are licensed to accept commercial-origin LLW,” with responsibility at the State level
- -Spent fuel storage can be classified into two broad groups: wet and dry storage. -wet: spent fuel pool -dry: at the reactor site (AR) or away from the reactor site (AFR) -Almost all spent fuel in the US has been in AR storage
- Dry Storage: licensed by NRC in 1986, spent fuel surrounded by inert gas inside a cask of metal or concrete -17 plants currently using dry cask storage Over the next 30 years every operating nuclear reactor in the United States is scheduled to be shut down. It is quite probable that every one of these reactors will have to provide additional spent fuel storage space. It is also quite probable that this additional storage using dry storage technologies to provide that additional storage capability and 20 other utilities are on the verge of having to do so. Figures 3.11 and 3.1216 illustrate the locations of these utilities and the types of dry storage each utility is or will be using. The problem of having to store spent fuel for very long periods of time will have to be faced all over the world, since Sweden is the only country that has done anything to provide a facility that provides off-site storage, and which also has the possibility of be-ing a disposal site at some future date. The rest of the world, including Sweden, is clearly waiting for the United States to establish a system for permanent disposal of spent fuel and HLW. Table 3.217 provides a chronology of initiatives on the storage of spent nuclear fuel. The systems used to provide additional dry storage capacity at utility sites have not changed. Although there are several additional manufacturers, the containers are still of the types that are described elsewhere in this chapter. There has been little or no additional fuel consolidation to help provide additional storage space. Although the law still requires the federal government to provide spent fuel storage for utilities that cannot reasonably provide it, there has been little progress by the government in this area. In view of the fact that utilities have found ways to provide the needed additional storage, it does not seem likely that the government will ever provide that kind of assistance. It is also quite likely that the rest of the world will use the technology being used here to provide any additional storage capacity that they might need. [Page 70]
- -Nuclear Waste Policy Act still “states that the federal government is responsible for providing…capacity for interim storage of SNF for civilian nuclear power reactors that cannot reasonably provide adequate storage capacity at their sites” (Saling and Fentman, 2001, p. 78) which currently includes plans for Federal Interim Storage and Monitored Retrievable Storage, but the DOE does not think will be required due to the increased efficiency of on-site fuel storage resulting from fuel rod consolidation
- Typical dry cask storage -canister is usually steel cylinder welded or bolted shut -canister is surrounded by additional steel or concrete for shielding - Can be vertical, horizontal, or used for transportation
- Three timeframes considered: Short-term storage Long-term storage Indefinite storage Assumptions: -spent fuel canisters and casks need to be replaced once every 100 years -the spent fuel storage facility and dry transfer system also need to be replaced once every 100 years -all spent fuel is moved from the spent fuel pools to dry storage by the end of the short-term storage timeframe
- ISFSI: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations SMALL: “Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource” AFR sites are slightly larger, so slightly more waste produced, but still SMALL impact One exception, indefinite management and disposal of nonradioactive waste could be MODERATE for the Indefinite Storage timeframe MODERATE: environmental effects are sufficient to measure but not destabilize important attributes of the resource
- -Postulated accidents include: hazards from natural phenomena, hazards from activities in the nearby facilities, fuel handling-related accidents, and the potential effects climate change -Design Basis III events: infrequent events that could be reasonably expect to occur over the lifetime of the dry cask storage facility -Design Basis IV events: extremely unlikely events or design basis accidents that are postulated to occur because they establish the conservative design basis for the system
- -for AFR: same results in Waste Management and Accidents -other categories such as transportation had increased impact, and not all categories are shown here
- - Current NRC proposed rule: storage in used fuel pools is feasible for 60 years after the licensed life of a reactor and in dry casks for indefinite periods, assuming that dry storage systems can be replaced every 100 years
- -Reference case: reactor lifetime extensions beyond 60 years (as high as 80 years) -High case: all nuclear lifetimes extended beyond the year 2040 -Low case: all nuclear plants retire after 60 years of operation