Thoughts for the Blue Ribbon Commission

Transcription

1 Thoughts for the Blue Ribbon Commission Dan Stout Tennessee Valley Authority June 9, 2010 [Personal thoughts, not TVA testimony]

2 TVA is Leading in Nuclear Generation Development Operational Under Construction Under Study Browns Ferry 1 Watts Bar 2 Bellefonte Reactor GE BWR Westinghouse PWR B&W (AREVA) PWR or West. AP1000 Clinch River B&W mpower Start Date Total Units Megawatts 6,600 7,780 9,040 9,290 June 9, 2010, page 2

3 Why Close the Fuel Cycle? Recyclable materials Waste 96% of the content of the used fuel assembly is recyclable Reduces uranium mining requirements by ~25% Reduces volume and toxicity of wastes that require geologic disposal, reducing repository requirements and costs Conserves and preserves valuable resources Improves long term sustainability of nuclear energy June 9, 2010, page 3

4 Wastes from Recycling RECYCLING + + Radioactivity content 100% Radioactivity content 99% Radioactivity content 0.9% Radioactivity content 0.1% 10.9m 3 0.8m 3 3.9m 3 71m 3 Cost to dispose $6 million Cost to dispose $1.2million Cost to dispose $0.5 million Cost to dispose $0.1 million Source: Energy Solutions: March 31, 2009 June 9, 2010, page 4

5 Many Challenges to be Addressed Prior to Building Recycling Facilities National Policy Acceptable Management & Business Case Fed Corp & Waste Fund Administration & Congress Build Recycle Facilities Administration & IAEA Proliferation & International Facility Design & Fuel Qualification Vendors NRC & EPA Regulatory Certainty DOE Recycling Technology June 9, 2010, page 5

6 Blue Ribbon Commission Informs National Policy Lee Hamilton & Brent Scowcroft co chair 15 members Deliverable: draft in 18 months, final in 24 months Recommendations on technologies, approaches and management structures Recommendation ineffective unless the Nuclear Waste Policy Act gets revised June 9, 2010, page 6

7 Proliferation Implications & International Considerations Technology is not the solution to proliferation resistance Should focus on proliferation resistant systems Based on a design basis threat Physical security (guns, guards and gates) Material control & accountability Incorporate lesson s learned Intricately linked to international policy June 9, 2010, page 7

8 Recycling Technology DOE R&D Roadmap issued in April 2010 Good comprehensive nuclear energy R&D vision Lacks building and operating prototypes DOE should give high priority to recycling technology issues that improve security and waste management Radioactive gas capture, waste form development and disposal Enhanced material control and accountability Industry collaboration with Labs/universities will result in DOE funding being relevant and used June 9, 2010, page 8

9 Recycling Regulatory Framework NEI White Paper submitted December 2008 NEI Recycling Task Force engaged Industry proposed a new Part 7X NRC approach: gap analysis, technical basis, draft rule, then final rule 23 gaps identified Estimating final rule in 2015 NRC stakeholder interactions planned in 2010 June 29 July 1: Fuel Cycle Information Exchange Second half of 2010: NRC public workshops planned EPA considering update to 40 CFR Part 190 June 9, 2010, page 9

10 Facility Design and Fuel Qualification Safe and secure designs are achievable France, UK, Russia and Japan are operating large recycling facilities today based on technology developed in the U.S. decades ago Regulatory clarity needed for a new U.S. facility to be designed Vendors (e.g. AREVA, EnergySolutions, GE Hitachi) can adjust their designs to conform to updated regulations Qualifying recycled fuels TVA is evaluating the potential use of MOX in both it s PWRs and BWRs Working with DOE and AREVA MOX Services Building on Duke lead test assemblies and international MOX experience TVA has successfully implemented the Blended Low Enriched Uranium program, partially addressing risks to reuse of uranium from recycling Commercial transportation systems need to be implemented June 9, 2010, page 10

11 Efficient Used Fuel Management Efficient management of large capital projects requires: Reliable funding; not subject to annual appropriations, ability to raise debt Long term contracting authority Senior management talent and continuity Could best be accomplished by a new government corporation (FedCorp) FedCorp would: Implement whatever policy the BRC/Administration/Congress decide upon Have authority to perform Storage, Transportation, Recycling and Disposal Make decisions based on sound business principles DOE would retain responsibility for long term R&D Storage Transport Separations and Fuel Fabrication Facilities Yucca Mountain Salt Formations June 9, 2010, page 11

12 Acceptable Business Case Risks need to be addressed: Clear and stable policy, codified in legislation Predictable NRC regulations Updated designs and their associated cost and schedule estimates Market for recycled products Decisions need to be based on sound business principles The 1 mill/kw hr nuclear waste fee is an allocation, not a cost Efficient implementation is in every nuclear utility s best interest Costs, timing and financing need to make good business sense June 9, 2010, page 12

13 Key National Leaders Indicated Support for Recycling We must solve our long term nuclear waste challenges and aggressively expand efforts to recycle spent nuclear fuel. Source: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Letter, 2008 June 9, 2010, page 13

14 Closing Thoughts Form FedCorp to implement used fuel management policy Policy and legislation should: Include storage, recycling and disposal Determine boundaries of what is acceptable and what isn t Incentivize desired behaviors Allow FedCorp to make hard business decisions within identified boundaries taking incentives into account (e.g. technology, size, timing, location, etc.) Don t wait for ideal solution should begin implementing June 9, 2010, page 14