Update on WCS’ Plans for Consolidated Interim Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel

Betsy MadruVP Government Affairs

2

Compact Facility

ByproductFacilityHazardous

WasteLandfill Federal

Facility

WCS Current Facilities

Treatment Facilities

Compact Facility

Federal Facility

LSA Pad

Hazardous Waste Landfill

Byproduct Facility

Administration Buildings and Treatment Facility

Federal Waste• Federal Class A, B, and

C LLRW and MLLRW

Commercial Waste• In- and Out-of-Compact

Class A, B, and C LLRW

3

Disposal and Service Capabilities

WCS provides the most comprehensive, full service, and complete Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Services in the Nation.

Storage• GTCC, TRU, Sealed

Sources, MLLRW• WIPP Program

Processing• Dewatering, Sorting,

Stabilization, Repackaging, etc.

• 3 state-of-the-art Type B Casks

• 2 Type A Casks

Transportation

• Accepts LLRW up to 10% of the Class A limit in RCRA/TSCA landfill

Low Activity

Compact Waste Facility

Federal Waste Facility

6

Comparison of LLW Disposal Designs

7

LegendUndisturbed GroundClay Liner (10-9 cm/s H.C.)Clay Liner (10-7 cm/s H.C.)Protective Soil/SandGeosynthetic LinerConcrete LinerLow Level WasteLeveling FillBiointrusion LayerDrainage LayerEvapotranspiration Layer

WCS Landfill Liner Design

40 ft

60 ft

WCS Design

WCS Landfill DesignAndrews, TX

• Multi-layered cover system up to 45 feet thick

• Depth to waste at least 25 feet below surface

• 9 ft. liner system on top of red bed clay which is less permeable to water than concrete and 600 feet thick

• Closest measurable water 225 feet

8

Compact Disposal Facility

WCS CWF – Native Clay

9

CWF During Construction

10

Clive, UT Site(Previous Industry Standard for Class A)

Class A waste disposed in lifts, and down blended Class B waste disposed in non-reinforced concrete

culverts and covered in sand

11

Barnwell Facility(Previous Industry Standard for Class B/C)

12

WCS Compact Facility(New Industry Standard)

CIS – Project Scope

• Environmental impacts will be analyzed with storage of 40,000 MTHM for 40 years– 8 separate phases; storage of up to 5,000 MTHM in each phase

• Initial SAR will include selected AREVA NUHOMS® and NAC International storage systems which will prioritize shutdown sites– Additional systems and sites to be added in future License Amendments– Storage of used fuel from over 10 shutdown/decommissioned nuclear

power plants will fit in Phase 1• Allows flexibility to transition beyond storage of fuel from currently

decommissioned reactors• License for 40 years with multiple renewals of up to 20 years each• Ongoing discussions with DOE and the U.S. Congress on how to

integrate the availability of an interim storage facility into the national strategy for used nuclear fuel management 13

14

Timeline

• February 2015 – filed the notice of intent• Currently – meetings with interested parties

and legislative members• April 2016 – file license application• June 2019 – NRC issues license

– Assumes a three year review period• September 2019 – Construction begins• December 2020 – Operations begin

15

License Application• WCS has the lead role in preparing the license application, with support

from AREVA and NAC• License application for Private Fuel Storage (PFS) that was approved by

the NRC provides a template• A Safety Analysis Report for the DOE following the NRC Standard Review

Plan (NUREG-1567) for a generic CISF has already been prepared by AREVA

• SAR will be prepared for selected AREVA NUHOMS® and NAC systems• To ensure lowest cost/risk/schedule duration in the licensing process,

the initial SAR will only include systems that:– Are currently licensed and in service– Are deployed or will be deployed at shutdown reactor sites

• Additional systems to be added in future license amendments

16

Indicates a “stranded” (ISFSI only) site identified in the 2012 Final Report of the “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future” (BRC)

Initial License Application will cover ~80% of UNF and GTCC at BRC “Stranded” Site

Initial License Application

• Priority on currently licensed systems for shutdown sites:

* Fuel Burned less than 45 GWd/MTU

NAC International· Maine Yankee· Connecticut Yankee· Yankee Rowe· La Crosse· Zion

AREVA NUHOMS®

· Rancho Seco· SONGS Unit 1· Millstone Unit 1· Oyster Creek* (S/D

scheduled 2019)

Consolidated Interim Storage: Industry Benefits

• Availability of a permanent geological repository is projected to take decades and faces significant local and state acceptance challenges

• Availability of consolidated storage facility offers flexibility for DOE to take title to and efficiently manage UNF

• Successful demonstration of transportation, licensing, and public consent processes will increase public confidence in the nuclear industry – Public is concerned over “stranded” UNF at decommissioned sites– Polls show the unresolved UNF management issue remains a vulnerability for

the nuclear industry

17

WCS CISF Project Provides a Way Forward to Deliver a Near-Term, Economically Viable Option for Consolidated Interim Used Fuel Management while a Permanent

Disposal Solution Continues to be Developed

18

Proposed CISF Site Overview

18

19

Expansion of an Existing Radioactive Waste Facility – Not a “Greenfield” Site

• Site includes ~14,000 acres (~23 square miles)– Includes Compact LLW,

Federal LLW, and RCRA Landfills and Storage and Processing Facility for LLW

• Licensed by Texas as an Agreement State

• Rail access, irradiated hardware, large components, and large scale D&D project services currently provided

Aerial Photo of LLRW Facilities

20

Location of CISFCISF will occupy ~320 acres or only 2.3% of the 14,000 acre site

20

21

Pad Layout for CISF

View of Deployed Systems for Phase 1 Pad

22

23

WCS has Proven Programs and Infrastructure for Managing Radioactive Materials

• WCS currently operates the most robust LLW disposal facility in the U.S.

• LLW is put into Modular Concrete Canisters, grouted and then placed into the landfill

• Operations include irradiated hardware with receipts as high as 20,000 rem/hr on contact, but a collective dose of only 50 mrem for disposal

• Radiation safety, environmental monitoring, security and other functions are ongoing

Compact Waste Facility

24

25

Thorough EnvironmentalCharacterization

• Environmental Impacts have been extensively analyzed in the region– NRC prepared an EIS for

URENCO USA– TCEQ conducted ER

supporting issuance of LLW and Storage licenses

• WCS approach allows addition of new storage systems as amendments, but ensures cumulative environmental impacts are analyzed

26

Strong Local and State Support

• WCS initiated discussions with Andrews County, Texas for support to site the CISF

• WCS underscored it would proceed only with the support of the local community

• Andrews County resolution endorsing the project passed unanimously on January 20, 2015

• Texas Radiation Advisory Board issued a Sept. 2014 position paper strongly recommending Texas position to itself to host the first CISF in the U.S.

• Enthusiastic support from Texas’ U.S. House and Senate delegation and the Governor’s office

PFS showed that broad consent (i.e., state level and not just local level support) is critical for project success

27

Blue Ribbon Solution

• The Blue Ribbon Commission’s report in 2012 recommended a consent-based CISF

• Allows the federal government (DOE) to take title to UNF and remove it from nuclear power plants (“stranded” fuel at shut-down plants should be a priority)

• WCS proposed CISF is an “outside the beltway” idea that requires no federal funding to start

28

Drives Progress Toward a Permanent Repository Solution

• The WCS CISF does not compete against a permanent repository– Over 70,000 MTHM generated to date– WCS CISF only licensing 40,000 MTHM– Still need a permanent solution for the industry

• Allows transportation system to be developed and demonstrated

• Easier to prepare fuel for final repository disposal at an active CISF instead of at a shutdown reactor siteCIS is a Complement to rather than a Competitor against Permanent

Geological Disposal

29

WCS Offers Most Realistic and Cost-Effective Solution

• Straightforward approach of only including already licensed and deployed systems in the initial License Application greatly reduces cost & risk of licensing

• Expansion of an existing radioactive waste facility (vs. a “greenfield” site) greatly reduces cost & risk of licensing, development and construction

• Consolidation of multiple “stranded” ISFSIs into one CISF will save licensing, aging management, and security costs and allow for re-use of decommissioned reactor sites

• Federal expenditures for transportation and storage will result in progress instead of just studies

• Opportunity to reduce taxpayer liabilities and payments owed from DOE’s partial breach of contracts with UNF title-holders

What Does WCS Need?

• Legislation enabling the DOE to take title to UNF and utilize portions of the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for interim storage services– WCS is willing to start the licensing process with no federal funding, but

will need certainty of funding for construction and operation

• Industry support for development of interim storage capability and supporting transportation infrastructure– Engage in development of supportive industry policy positions (NEI)– Engage Congressional stakeholders to advance meaningful UNF

management policy and enable opportunities for private storage solutions

• DOE initiative on transportation of used fuel required to facilitate storage commencing in December 2020

30

31

Summary• WCS project is consistent with the BRC’s recommendations

regarding need for consolidated interim storage and consent-based licensing

• WCS, AREVA, and NAC have the qualifications and capabilities to license, construct, and operate the facility

• License Application to be submitted by April 2016 will cover ~80% of UNF and GTCC at BRC “Stranded” Sites

• Site is environmentally well-characterized, enjoys broad local, state level and congressional support, and already has robust infrastructure that supports operating LLW facilities

• A complement to and not a competitor against a permanent geological repository

• See the website www.WCSstorage.com for updates