New Developments in the Yucca Mountain Program (YMP)
Edward (Ward) Sproat, Director; DOE-Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)
(PowerPoint available upon request)

NAS key reports:
Times report - 1995
Adaptive Staging Report - One step at a time (love idea).  Regulatory regime not adaptive though.
Going the Distance (good report)

Milestones
Focus on License Application (LA) submittal no later than June 2008.
Best achievable opening of Yucca, March 2017.  Not most probable.

3 components:
1) Between today and LA - 18 mo.  Will meet that.  -4 mos., plus 0.
2) LA and Construction authorization. Three years of litigation may occur.  -0, plus 4 years.
3) Construction auth and opening repository.  -0, plus 1½ years.
Total = -0, plus 3½ years most likely realistic schedule.

Program Strategic Objectives
1) LA different approach this time that will allow quick process, docketing and turnaround.
2) Just as important, train competent OCRWM office to progress YMP and run it.
3) Spent Fuel Contracts, address federal govt. mounting liability - ½ billion per year.
4) Develop and begin implementation of transportation plan.  Has been under-funded since focus on future importance, but should be doing now.  Get states and locals involved in all aspects.  Fully behind NAS study recommendations.  Currently looking into how to meet those recommendations.

Key Issues Update:
Legislative, S.2589:
            Land Withdrawal
            Capacity Limit
            Waste Fund Receipts Reclassification - access to NWF receipts, $750 million/year, without it counting against the Federal Budget Deficit.

FY2007:
House passed budget, Senate did not.  Probably won't in lame duck.  May go on continuing resolution (CR) until next Feb., March.  Don't know how it will end up.

Revision to EPA Standard 40 CFR 197:
            Post closure performance standards at Yucca Mountain (NAS report)
            Being released end of year, maybe January.  Now in interagency review, including EPA.  DOE doesn't need it to submit their LA, but NRC 
            will need it to give the license.

Thoughts on Adaptive Staging:
            Turn science into engineering design
                        i.e. - magma intrudence, how to design to avoid it
            Theory versus practice

See conversation on NAS books above.  Regulatory regime - should design facilities to maximize retention and capture of fission products for maximum period of time.

Operation - putting waste in, maybe allow for retrieve-ability if something comes up, or for recycling.  But at some point must make decision to close repository and leave it there.  Should do this 100 years or so into the future.  Part 63 requires this now though, before construction license can be granted.  This is backward.  100 years from now, NRC will not require any further studies before it is permanently closed.  This is too front-loaded.

Regulatory compliance - up to a million years.  Only attorneys for state of NV think this is a good idea.

One Step at a Time report - Cannot do with the current regulatory regime.  Next book should be called - "….for a million years."

Q - How can we make adaptive staging doable?
A - Change Part 63.  May be too late to change though - not helpful in short term since submitting LA soon.
When standard (peak dose year) comes out, will be litigated.  Uncertainty bands will bring out dueling PhDs - for at least 8 years.  If this group can clarify meaning of word versus how enacted, that would help in anticipation of litigation.

C - Committee persuaded that part 63 could be applied flexibly.  Then current design was for un-failed fuel in a single package - hypothetical reservoir.  Booklet cautious.  Committee said this is not fitting with their thinking.
A - Phased adaptive approach allowed in some instances.
Licensing process (part 63), is very heavily front-end loaded.  Long-term analysis prior to construction authorization.  Counter to intent of report.
C - Meant to recognize possible litigation and dispute it.

Kevin Crowley -
2 reports - not just technical, but to bring public along.  Societal consensus a big reason for adaptive staging recommendation.
10CFR63 - Could you not propose something slightly different than in regulations if say you will meet them and how/when appropriate?
A - Yes, I did so with licensing a reactor.  But there are specific factors within the law that the Commission must find to grant construction.  Post closure performance criteria very specific, set by EPA.

C - Experience with reactor LA may be a detriment.
A - Reasonable assurance and reasonable expectation a nuanced difference.

Q - Supplemental EIS?
A - Just starting.  Look at differences in repository now from original site characterization.

Differences include:
Surface facility - dry to wet for fuel canisters that come in and need to be repackaged in a TAD.
Surface layout changed.

Q - Legislation.  Going to Congress to require NRC to determine capacity for NRC.  What if don't get answer back in time for Yucca?
A - EIS assumed about double capacity - approx. 125,000.  Can argue in front of NRC with LA.

Kevin Crowley, NAS - Interim Storage on Senate side.  Are you thinking of centralized interim storage at Yucca?
A - Under existing law, can't do interim storage anywhere except Yucca and only after licensed.
Accumulation of government liability - alternative to reduce taxpayer burden?  Maybe interim storage a solution, but depends on many aspects.  Interim Storage only makes sense for two reasons - waste confidence, reduce govt. liability.
Doesn't fix waste confidence though, can be done through legislation or NRC changes.  Second reason depends on many factors such as when, where, etc.

 

New Developments in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)
Dr. Paul Lisowski, Deputy Program Manager; DOE, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(PowerPoint available upon request)

Office of NE reorganized.

GNEP basics:
A national strategy based on presidential initiative.  Lots of plans, not much funding yet.
Need  because of rising energy demand.
World electricity demand to increase by 200% in 25 years
US by 65% in 25 years
Environmental concerns, proliferation concerns

Goals:
Reducing burden of geologic disposal.  Waste volume, heat load, toxicity - extend use of repository through 21^st century.  Have to change legislation though.
Recover energy value in SNF
Reduce proliferation risks

US Program Elements:
Expand nuclear power
Minimize burden from SNF
Develop advanced recycle technology
Develop advanced burner reactors
Enhance nuclear safeguards technology
Establish reliable fuel services
Promote exportable reactor

Once-through fuel cycle - instead transuranics into fuel to burn in advanced burner reactor.  Transmutation fuel separation, transuranics, with uranium, back to fuel, fission products process losses.

Developing a reliable international fuel service is an essential part of reducing proliferation risk.

Technology base:
40-year base of experience with liquid metal fast reactors and test reactors in US.
Foreign reprocessing
Major technical risk area for GNEP is transuranic recycle
GNEP will have an R&D program element to address technology risk.

Deployment plan for GNEP now to include industry and R&D activities.
Operate commercial-scale advanced recycling and burner reactor in US as early as 2020-2025. 
Store 
Close technology gaps.

Supporting this approach requires both R&D and technology development components.
Long-term

Reprocessing and fast reactor - industry side
Transmutation on federal facilities (AFCF), because of materials handled

Domestically:
18 expressions of interest (EOIs)
Grants for detailed study of potential host sites - 14 applicants.  Announcement today for 11 site grants.
Programmatic EIS in Summer 2008
June 2008, Secretarial decision on GNEP going forward.  His office to inform.

At a minimum, should restore intellectual faith in nuclear power.  This is up to full GNEP program.

International partnerships:
Supply reliable fuel service that cannot be resolved in commercial market.
Reduce need for countries to enrich themselves.
Intl R&D partnerships

Q - Ambitious undertaking.  In part to address carbon cycle.  How many reactors would be required?
A - Want to close the fuel cycle over 100 years.  Fleet of reactors a mix of light water and fast reactors (1/3).  Grow as fast as industry will grow it - by 2030 may be expedited (one reactor every five years?).  Impact on carbon cycle long term, not short.
Q - But 2050 is tipping point.  Wouldn't address that.

Q - DOE roadmap on recycling buried in past because it was deemed too expensive.
A - Do have an economic model.  Cost of implementing once-through versus closed.  Closed a bit higher, but govt. responsibility to handle waste and need innovation.  So maybe cost-sharing.

Q - What is spurring this?  Are foreign partners putting money into this?
A - Proliferation issue overrides many other issues.  Foreign countries are putting in money.  Our transuranic fuel in a French reactor now.  Talking with Russian federation.  Some work will be underwritten by Russian research.

C - Member of NAS panel worked in closed fuel cycle.  EBR2 system.  Fuel went for 5 cycles.  Reactor design changes to handle re-fabricated fuel.  Program you've laid out - going to industry for some parts, going to govt. for others - not going to work.
No interchange between reprocessing people and fuel people.
A - Requirement for integration may come out of thinking.
C - No need to consider reprocessing fast reactor fuel.

Q - China? etc., any conversations with them using it?
A - He hasn't spoken with China.  Japan and France important too.  Intl program not formed yet.  Details not worked out.

Q - Commercial scale facilities don't make sense now?
A - Commercial scale encompass big range.  Long start up period.

Q - System as a whole.  If priority was to avoid proliferation, then could do so with no nuclear energy.  If intent to reduce waste - different set of priorities.  Needs systems analysis.  Set of building blocks have not been sized to build a total structure.  Must do early before apportion money.
A - Fuel supplier states can take back fuel.  If US not part of that, can't establish rules for non-proliferation.
C - If no Yucca Mountain problem, and can store cheaply, would have to justify fast reactor expense.  Internationally - priorities may be different.  Do you have a shared intl systems model?
A - Systems analysis in 2007 budget.  Have only looked at the US so far.

Kevin Crowley, NAS - AFCF?
Prototype of a world class research facility to discover how to burn transuranics.  This happens before industry side.  Research scale before commercial scale.

Outgoing Majority Chief of Staff for the House
Comment - Don't see reduction in House in support for Yucca.  Think Sproat doing excellent job and giving realistic schedule.  Questions about timing, but useful.
GNEP - agencies often defend president's budget request to the death.  But this agency being flexible.  Congress trying to understand changes.  Several big challenges:

• FY 2007 appropriations (House passed, Senate didn't, likely to pass CR til next Congress.  May turn into a year-long CR).  Could tighten GNEP funding more than Yucca.
• Change in political landscape.  NV holds stronger hand now with Reid.  May change Sproat's schedule.  Don’t think House will change, Senate not certain yet.
• GNEP - not much difference between Dems and Reps.  Interest groups on some sides not as comfortable about nuclear energy and waste.  Not dead necessarily, but raises bar on need to persuade Congress.  Worthwhile to at least explore process, but can't get funded at full level for exploring.  That is why House passed half as much funding as budget request.  Not enough meat on bone.  Need to link R&D and commercial reactors, those producing with those selling. 
• Timing issue.  Safety and Security.  Financial Liability.  NRC waste confidence if Yucca full, yet not built.  Need some interim solution: interim storage, fast-track Yucca, early implementation of off-the-shelf commercial reprocessing?  Sproat/Yucca - slow and steady and get it right.  GNEP/Industry - working with industry, but not putting hands on fuel until 2020 or 2025.  This is why interim storage necessary.  Senate has version too.  Since Yucca and/or reprocessing far out, need to move now with what can do.

Opportunity and challenge for board.  Recycling needs to be fleshed out to determine development, costs, waste streams.  Congress may need NAS to independently assess technology.

Kevin Crowley, NAS - GNEP and global warming.  Something has happened in last 6 mos. to give this issue (GW) more weight.
A - Yes, he has observed shift on both sides.  May result in investing money more into Office of Science for carbon sequestration, etc.
Sierra Club, nuclear best solution in near term.  Much of environmental community hasn't bought in yet though.  Probably more debate in the future, may have to make case stronger to pass.

Kevin Crowley, NAS - Interim Storage, not a partisan issue.
A - Golden opportunity - take closed reactor fuel first.  Start moving as sign of good faith to ratepayers and utilities.  This will help waste confidence.  His subcommittee doesn't think legislating it away is an honest step.

 

New Developments in Environmental Management (EM), including technology road mapping
Mark Gilbertson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Technology; DOE-EM

House Appropriations committee requested a technology roadmap in FY07, due in January.  But because of CR and uncertainty in request, went to Hill to seek guidance.  Schedule not due til end of March.  That is when Congress will generally pass judgment on new budget.

Potential for committee to do workshop.  Scientific and technical needs assessment have been done by NAS for EM in past.  EM currently restructuring.  Funding changes last few years - external technical reviews, however, show implementation of big projects require more funds for technical risk.  Helped with a roadmap.  Initial one will be a letter report, not as robust as future ones, because of time constraints.  Roadmap includes funding increases.  Troubled with CR.

Asked NAS to gather info from labs on their concerns regarding technical risks.  Hope for more honest feedback.

Second piece - asked for a phase two study.  Support from National Labs, but subcontracted out.  Do that on an annual basis.  Are investments in labs based on history?  What about WTP?  What kind of assistance will EM need from labs in future?

What critical infrastructure do you need from universities?  Why not focus on those.  We do fund them at a lower rate than labs, but business decision.  May warrant phase 3 study.

Q - Boundaries of Science and Technology programs.  You are with EM, but what about related parts of DOE - those other offices in charge of cleanup (NNSA), and OLM.
A - That is small in overall size, but agrees there is synergy there.  They do invite other groups to workshops, etc., but don't have mandate across other offices.

Kevin Crowley, NAS - October workshop useful.
This study might end up addressing a look at intellectual resources not only at labs, but within offices.  This could be phase two.
A - Outside group can help restore our credibility, make right investments in future.

Kevin Crowley, NAS - Stay connected to Office of Science in doing this study.

(Rest of presentation)

Tank waste:
Workshop in December on cementatious materials for low-level D&D?  Supported by Vanderbilt and SRS.   Bringing in NRC and EPA.
Modeling timeframes.

Press release for Waste Determination for closure of Idaho tanks.  Started to grout smaller tanks.  Major milestone.  That activity informed by NAS and NRC work.

Sequencing of work - taking to heart issue of potential new technologies for removing waste from tanks (additional materials from tanks 18 and 19).

EM being more open with technical issues.  Bulk vitrification technical review available.  Report states that technology in beginning stages.  Team didn't see fatal flaws that couldn't be addressed with a concerted effort, but need that effort.

Dec., early January - external technical review will be available for external salt reprocessing facility.  QA and ability of engineering firms.  Need to pay attention to them.

Then hold a root cause analysis session to address things in a proactive way.

Overall Program Goals for 07:
Rispoli's utmost priority is safety performance.
Project mgmt.  Now at 50-60% of performance acceptance.  Want to be 90%.
Designing, constructing, managing waste mgmt. infrastructure to reduce health and environmental risks.
Reduce technical uncertainty - NAS can help.
Better with stakeholder, more transparent.  External reviews.  National meeting going on now.
NAPA review of their program in terms of human capital.

Q - 10 million R&D program recommendation?
A - Can't talk about '08 budget formulation.  Committees heard though and are plus upping it.  If done with assessment by March, can use in '08 budget, if not, in '09.

Q - Still supporting graduate programs to mold future EM employees?
A - No, but new intern program.  Establish pipeline.  May include fellowships at national labs.