National Academy of Sciences, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board
Open Session Meeting
December 13, 2007 - Washington, D.C.
~ MEETING SUMMARY ~
New Developments in the Yucca Mountain Program
Ward Sproat, Director; U.S. DOE-Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM)
OCRWM team has managed to get the Yucca Mountain Project "unstuck," but substantial barriers remain ahead. Mr. Sproat plans to stay on as director for the coming 13 months before a new administration takes over.
Program Key Milestones:
- Design for License Application (LA) completed 12/01/07 - estimated Nov. 2007
- Licensing Support Network (LSN - online database of supporting documents for LA to be used in Yucca Mountain hearings) submitted 10/19/07 - estimated Dec. 2007. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rejected the State of Nevada's challenge to the LSN on Dec. 12. Nevada must certify its LSN collection by mid-January.
- Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Drafts issued October 2007 - estimated May 2008. Eight public hearings have been held. EISs cover supplemental Yucca Mountain issues and rail corridor and alignment issues.
- Independent Assessments - took a long time to get procurements out, but will release findings today. The assessment of engineering states that it meets or exceeds standards, but is not efficient. The assessment of quality assurance states substantial and significant improvements. OCRWM is committed to making sure progresses are sustainable after the director leaves.
- License Application Submittal expected June 2008, assuming adequate funding. Project currently reprogramming to a lower number.
- Start Construction of Nevada Rail - had been estimated for October 2009, but funding has been substantially below the president's request, so designs have been delayed and a start date is uncertain.
- Yucca Mountain Construction Authorization had been estimated for September 2011, but it is unlikely that the NRC will complete the license application in three years (expected to request a fourth).
- Operating License Submittal of March 2013 is predicated on funding and the construction schedule.
- Rail Line Operational - had been estimated for June 2014, but now 2016 is more likely, and only with adequate funding.
- Begin Receipt of Waste at Yucca Mountain. Best achievable date had been set for March 2017, but depending on FY2008 actual funding, could slip by 12-18 months. Cannot say for sure until know funding levels.
Program Challenges:
- Fiscal Year 2008 Appropriations - the key issue.
- Access to the Nuclear Waste Fund - single most important issue for building the repository at Yucca Mountain in a reasonable timeframe. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act intended program funding to be self sustaining by creating a separate funding source paid into by utility ratepayers. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act changed terminology - the Nuclear Waste Fund was mandatory receipts, whereas the Yucca Mountain project funding was discretionary spending (one can't be used to fund the other). Discretionary spending is dependent on annual appropriations and must compete with other federal programs. Cannot build a repository at $300-400 million/year; will need $1.2-1.9 billion per year to build and operate the repository.
- Program Structure for Management and Funding Continuity. Senior management should not be political appointees - need to consider other recommended structures.
- Revision to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standard 40CFR197. Don't know when to expect this decision from the EPA on radiation standards. It has been in interagency discussions for over a year and the NRC is eager to get the information.
- 70,000 Metric Ton Capacity Limit. The existing fleet of nuclear reactors will have discharged their share of repository capacity in 17-18 months. OCRWM must report to Congress by 2010 on the need for a second repository; plan to have the report done in six-seven months. If the capacity limit is not raised, another repository will be needed. OCRWM is now looking into options for a path forward.
- Government Financial Liability - not a challenge for the program, but for the federal government and taxpayers. Liabilities for not taking waste from utilities will build to seven billion dollars by 2017, and a half billion will be added each year thereafter until a repository is available to accept the waste. This expense is paid out of the taxpayer judgment fund.
Q&A
Germany has experienced interim storage for 40 years, and there doesn't seem to be much pressure to speed development of a repository. Why is it so here?
- The U.S. government has contracts with utilities to take the waste, which expired January 1998. The U.S. government has to pay everyday thereafter for breaking the contract. Industry has been supportive; they don't want delays with the Yucca Mountain repository to damage the resurgence of nuclear energy. The situation is adequate for now.
Will the report on a second repository include a recycling option?
- Yes. But defense waste, which will not be recycled, makes up 1/3 of the repository's volume. Recycling of commercial spent fuel will also result in wastes needing disposal in a repository.
Will the second repository report and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) package to Energy Secretary Bodman - both expected in 2008 - be coordinated?
- They are being created independently, but are coordinated. The second repository report will include the potentiality of recycling.
Will long-term surface storage be considered?
- The Yucca Mountain Project is not affected by talk of interim storage in Congress.
- Not factoring into the second repository report because:
o Changes in law would need to take place before this becomes an option.
o Interim storage sites are seen as less cost-effective than a repository - greater delays in funding, licensing, building, etc.
You mentioned needing $1.2-1.9 to build and operate a repository; what will you need in FY2008?
- Funding in FY2007 was supplemented with a $100 million carryover, for a total of $545 million. Completing the License Application is very personnel-intensive.
- Not certain what is needed in FY2008. Requirements are embedded, such as payments to states and lab infrastructure.
Will there be an independent review of the second repository report?
- No. It will be delivered to Congress and they can decide how to progress from there.
Have questions from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board as to the importance/relevance of "cold" versus "hot" waste in the repository been determined?
- Have conducted thermal analysis, which addresses a range of temperatures. Technical specs will be provided to the NRC in the License Application.
Plutonium Disposition
Kenneth Bromberg, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Fissile Materials Disposition; National Nuclear Security Administration
DOE plans to dispose of approximately 43 metric tons of surplus plutonium, currently stored at Hanford (WA), Los Alamos (NM), Lawrence Livermore (CA), Pantex (TX), and the Savannah River Site (SC).
This effort will render the plutonium inaccessible and unattractive for weapons use while protecting human health and the environment - and encourages Russia to do likewise. Consolidating the surplus plutonium at the Savannah River Site (SRS) will reduce storage, safeguards, and security costs.
Three-pronged Planned Approach:
- MOX (mixed oxide) Fuel Fabrication Facility (34 metric tons) - including Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility and Waste Solidification Building.
- Small-scale vitrification process (up to 13 metric tons - likely 7) in the basement of K-Reactor at SRS - for waste not suitable for reuse as fuel.
- Continued operation of H-Canyon (two metric tons).
The net present value cost of this approach is approximately $11 billion over 28 years. By comparison, long-term storage is more expensive - $10 billion, followed by the cost to dispose of the material.
Alternatives to the three-pronged approach include:
- Possible elimination of the small-scale vitrification process. Instead process 39 metric tons of plutonium through the MOX facility and three+ metric tons through H-Canyon.
- Possible expansion of the MOX mission: additional plutonium from future weapons dismantling (nine metric tons), fabrication of start-up fuel for GNEP fast reactors, additional non-pit plutonium currently planned for small-scale vitrification (5.7 metric tons).
Three facilities to be constructed at Savannah River associated with first "prong:"
- Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility - to disassemble nuclear weapons pits (take the steel covering off) and convert the plutonium metal to an oxide powder.
- MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility - to fabricate plutonium oxide into MOX fuel assemblies.
- Waste Solidification Building - to process radioactive and mixed waste streams from the previous two facilities.
MOX facility construction started in August 2007 - all major milestones have been met so far. NNSA has a high degree of confidence as to the MOX cost and schedule baseline. NRC issued the construction license in March 2005 and is currently reviewing the MOX facility operating license application (submitted in 2006). Operations are expected to begin in 2017.
The Pit Disassembly & Conversion Facility is expected to begin operations in 2019 - opening later than the MOX facility due to funding constraints. Level funding is costly and slow; the project could be moving much more quickly.
A 2000 agreement between the U.S. and Russia faced impasses over liability and international funding delays. The plan was revised and Russia will rely on the use of fast reactors to dispose of (burn) 1½ metric tons of surplus plutonium per year. The U.S. financial contribution is capped at $400 million; other international contributions are encouraged. Limits on recycling spent fuel are included in the agreement - no new stocks of separated weapons plutonium can be created, but the agreement allows for advanced fuels testing for GNEP. A monitoring team will go to Russia to check progress.
Q&A
What if more surplus plutonium comes online?
- It can be added to the mission.
What types of waste streams are expected?
- Transuranic waste, which will be shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, and low-level radioactive waste.
Is this program at all affected by the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program?
- No.
Will you charge utilities for use of the MOX fuel.
- Yes. Use will include discounts for low-enriched fuel.
Medical Exposures to Radiation: Recommendations of the American College of Radiology White Paper on Radiation Dose in Medicine
Dr. E. Stephen Amis, Jr., Professor and University Chair; The Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Department of Radiology
A 1987 report by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) found that 82 percent of human radiation exposure came from natural background radiation and 18 percent from man-made radiation - 80 percent of which was medical in origin.
An NCRP report due out in Spring 2008 is expected to find that man-made radiation now accounts for more than 50 percent of human exposure, largely due to a 20x increase in CT scans.
As one of the American College of Radiology's (ACR) missions is to improve the quality and safety of patient care, a blue ribbon panel on radiation dose in medicine was created to review these alarming statistics and determine ways to reduce preventable exposure. Thirty-three recommendations for every aspect of the radiological industry - from vendors to physicians - were included in a white paper released in May 2007.
Recommendations included:
- Development of a national database for radiation dose indices to address the actual range of exposures for x-ray examinations.
- Formal instruction on radiation exposure in medical imaging to medical students and during residency training.
- Adding the radiation exposure risk to "Appropriateness Criteria" for ordering CT scans.
- Sponsoring a summit of Emergency Medicine leaders to discuss consensus guidelines and where CT scans may be over utilized.
- Support the CARE bill requiring federal standards for those giving radiological exams.
- Work with the Food and Drug Administration and the NRC to minimize radiation exposure.
- Encourage member states of the "Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation" to adopt uniform regulations.
Q&A
This report is very impressive. What can the National Academies do to further your cause and recommendations?
- It is important to get this information about the risks of CT scans out to the public and medical community.
Are your recommendations being implemented?
- ACR is working to implement and track the recommendations. Obviously some volunteerism is required.
Comment: Doctors and nurses are often unaware of dose rate estimates themselves.
Cost of Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Relative to Direct Disposal
Ron Gecan, Ph.D., Principal Analyst; Congressional Budget Office
Question: What is the relative cost of recycling spent nuclear fuel (reprocessing) relative to not-recycling (direct disposal)?
Answer: The 2007 present value cost of reprocessing is at least $5 billion (25 percent) more than direct disposal over the life of a reprocessing plant. This figure is based on: 40-year estimate, fixed yearly nuclear waste generation, and exclusion of existing legacy waste. Even greater cost differences are possible.
Observations:
- Reprocessing Plant costs (capital and operating) are the largest factors contributing to the range of estimated costs.
- The greater cost of reprocessing is robust under a variety of assumptions.
- Economies of scale for reprocessing plant costs may be important, but are hard to quantify.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Methodology:
- Limited number of commercial reprocessing facilities.
- Review of representative studies:
- Boston Consulting Group (BCG, 2006) - funded by AREVA found that reprocessing and direct disposal cost about the same amount.
- Harvard Kennedy School of Government (Kennedy, 2003) - found reprocessing to be twice as expensive as direct disposal, $1,200/kilowattHour versus $600/kwHr.
- Convert unit cost estimates to a cash flow analysis.
- Compute total discounted spending on each waste management scenario based on the expected volume of waste generated in the coming decades.
- The difference in total discounted waste management costs is the metric of interest.
Assumptions:
- A constant 2,200 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) generated yearly.
- Legacy waste not considered.
- SNF is recycled one time.
- Steady-state analysis
- Approximately 15 percent of SNF is previously recycled fuel.
- Reprocessing plant handles ~ 1,900 metric tons/year.
- Spent previously-recycled fuel stored on long-term basis in on-surface or near-surface facility.
- Scale effects on costs for plant size are not considered.
Baseline Results - Present Value Waste Management Costs:
Reprocessing: Kennedy - $53.3 billion; BCG - $26.6 billion
Direct Disposal: Kennedy - $27.4 billion; BCG - $24.7 billion
The biggest cost component differential was related to the Reprocessing Plant. Kennedy found it to be $39.4 billion, versus $16.0 billion for BCG.
The CBO review analyzed the modeling differences between the two studies and attempted to find a more consensus figure using common assumptions:
- Long-term Repository Adjustments: BCG calculated unit cost of the repository based on the DOE Total System Lifecycle Cost Estimate of $736/kgHM. Kennedy calculated it by working back from the 1 mil/kwHr energy charge, and came to $868/kgHM. CBO used the BCG methodology, but updated it to include the revised OCRWM budget estimates, and came to $1,036/kgHM.
- Repository Densification: Degree to which reprocessing wastes can be stored more densely (and at proportionately lower cost) than SNF. BCG assumed a 4x densification factor; Kennedy assumed 2x. CBO figured 2.5x, as spent previously-recycled fuel would need to be held in long-term "interim" storage.
Aspects impacting relative cost:
- Cost characteristics of a reprocessing plant
- Type of financing (public or private)
- Reprocessing plant utilization
- Cost of a repository
- Densification factor of reprocessed waste
- Future uranium prices and fuel credits
- Growth of the commercial nuclear reactor industry
Link to CBO Testimony before Congress on 11/14/07 about the reprocessing study.
|
