|
|
|
Market-driven waste acceptance, storage, and transportation approach |
Chapter Two
Waste Acceptance, Storage and Transportation
OCRWM Annual Report to Congress, FY 1996
Fiscal Year 1996 marked a major change in the program's strategy for managing waste acceptance, storage, and transportation activities. Several factors converged to produce this change: 1) deep funding cuts made it necessary to curtail expenditures for these functions in order to maintain momentum at Yucca Mountain, 2) legislative debate called into question the future policy direction for development of interim storage capability and support for our work to develop multi-purpose canisters and transportation casks, and 3) initiatives within the Department and the Administration were promoting privatization of Federal services where appropriate.
Our reallocation of Fiscal Year 1996 funds resulted in a 76 percent reduction in funding for the Waste, Storage, and Transportation Project--from $57 million to $13.6 million. We therefore decided to terminate development of the multi-purpose canister system and the legal-weight truck cask. We also decided that, rather than exercise all waste acceptance, storage, and transportation functions ourselves, it would be more prudent to acquire equipment and services from private industry. We therefore began to prepare for a competitive procurement.
Developing a Market-Driven Strategy
In the fall of 1995, we began to evaluate alternative ways to acquire waste acceptance, storage, and transportation services. A working group was formed to determine the feasibility of developing a performance-based contract for these services. In May 1996, we issued a Request for Expression of Interest and Comments that provided general information on the acquisition process proposed by the working group and requested comments on specific issues. Comments were reviewed, and they helped shape the development of a draft Statement of Work and draft Request for Proposal.
In June 1996, we issued the draft Statement of Work and a draft Concept of Operations, announcing their availability in the Commerce Business Daily and the Federal Register . We held a pre-solicitation conference in July to brief industry on our acquisition approach and obtain comments. Nearly 90 interested parties attended the conference. Comments helped shape the draft Request for Proposal that we issued in December 1996.
|
|
|
Market-driven waste acceptance, storage, and transportation approach |
Under the acquisition strategy we are developing, we will award fixed-price, multi-year, performance-based contracts. Contractors will be responsible for providing all transportation casks and equipment suitable for use at utilities' sites. Casks and equipment will have to comply with all applicable regulations and requirements. Contractors will accept spent nuclear fuel on behalf of the Department according to our specifications, and they will deliver it to an interim storage facility or a repository. Contractors will meet specified acceptance rates; apply for and receive required permits, licenses and approvals; interact with State, Tribal and local governments regarding institutional issues; and provide facilities as needed to support operation of this system. We plan to offer incentives and flexibility to encourage innovative private sector approaches to developing the equipment and management capability needed to accept and transport spent fuel--a major and unprecedented logistical undertaking. When the national policy debate on interim storage is resolved, we will determine the shipping schedule and issue a final Request for Proposal for these services.
Interim Storage Contingency Planning
When we refocused OCRWM's program in the fall of 1995 to adjust to reduced funding, we resolved to maintain the core capability to rapidly design and license a facility for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel. As part of our contingency planning, we identified all tasks that could be conducted prior to designation of an interim storage site. One task we decided to pursue is development of a non-site-specific design for a storage facility and a Topical Safety Analysis Report. We will submit the report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; if the Commission finds the design and analysis acceptable, it will issue a Safety Evaluation Report documenting its findings. The two reports could then be referenced in development of a site-specific design, shortening the time it would take the Commission to review the license application for an interim storage facility.
In April 1996, the program's management and operating contractor was authorized to begin non-site-specific design for a Phase I facility that would receive only canistered spent nuclear fuel, which would be transferred from shipping casks to storage casks. Because this design would not entail facilities for handling spent fuel, it could be constructed quickly. Subsequently, additional capabilities could be added (a Phase II facility) for receipt, unloading, and storage of uncanistered fuel. Several design review meetings were held, and the non-site-specific Phase I design was approximately 50 percent complete at the end of Fiscal Year 1996. Submittal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the non-site-specific Phase I Topical Safety Analysis Report is scheduled for May 1997.
|
|
|
Generic Federal interim storage facility |
In January 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard arguments presented by lawyers for 25 utilities and 22 State regulatory agencies concerning the Department's obligation to accept civilian spent nuclear fuel in 1998. The hearing was the result of a May 30, 1995, suit against the Department in response to the Department's May 1, 1995, Final Interpretation of Nuclear Waste Acceptance Issues, which stated the Department's belief that it does not have an unconditional obligation to accept civilian spent nuclear fuel in January 1998 in the absence of a repository or an interim storage facility constructed under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department also concluded that it had no authority under the Act to provide interim storage under present circumstances.
On July 23, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Federal Government has an obligation to accept spent nuclear fuel from electric utilities beginning in 1998, even though the Department does not have a permanent geologic repository or an interim storage facility. The court further stated, however, that it was premature to determine the appropriate remedy "as DOE has not yet defaulted upon either its statutory or contractual obligation." The court remanded the matter to the Department for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
In December 1996, the Department sent letters to the holders of the Standard Contract for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste notifying them that the Department anticipates that it will be unable to begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel for disposal in a repository or interim storage facility by January 31, 1998, and inviting the views of all contract holders on how the delay can best be accommodated.
On January 31, 1997, a coalition of 46 State agencies and a coalition of 33 utilities filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asking the court to 1) permit them to put into escrow future fees they would otherwise pay into the Nuclear Waste Fund, unless and until the Department accepts their spent nuclear fuel, and 2) direct the Department to develop a program that will enable it to begin accepting spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. The petition was pending as this report went to press.
We continued to develop a unified database to consolidate all waste acceptance information, such as spent nuclear fuel inventory, Nuclear Waste Fund fee status, waste acceptance allocations, and information about nuclear power plants. The initial phase for demonstration of a prototype database system was completed, but due to funding constraints in Fiscal Year 1997, further development is not being pursued. Work also continued to finalize the procedures and documentation necessary to accomplish waste transfer, such as material control and accounting procedures.
An agreement was successfully concluded on September 27, 1996, between OCRWM and the Office of Environmental Management (EM) concerning possible expenditures by EM of taxpayer funds which might have benefited the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. This agreement is responsive to a recommendation by the Department's Inspector General to establish a system for crediting such expenditures by EM toward future payments for costs related to the disposal of defense wastes in a civilian repository.
OCRWM has transmitted a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Acceptance of Department of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste to EM for review. EM and OCRWM management have agreed to complete the MOA by September 1997.
Terminating the multi-purpose canister system
In November 1995, as a result of budgetary constraints, the decision was made to terminate work to develop a multi-purpose canister (MPC) system that could serve storage, transportation, and disposal functions. The MPC Phase I design effort had been initiated in April 1995 with award of a contract to a team headed by Westinghouse Electric Corporation for design of both large and small capacity storage canisters, a prototype transportation overpack, and welding and handling equipment. Because of the potential for large contract termination liabilities and the availability of obligated Fiscal Year 1995 funding for the design effort, we decided to allow the Phase I design effort to continue through completion. However, the decision to terminate meant that Phase II, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission certification phase, would not be exercised in Fiscal Year 1996. All Phase I design packages and Topical Safety Analysis Reports were delivered to us by Westinghouse in August 1996.
All work done to date on the MPC is considered non-proprietary, and we are making the design packages and Topical Safety Analysis Reports available to private industry. Westinghouse has elected to continue efforts to have the large MPC certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with assistance from EM.
The MPC Environmental Impact Statement that was initiated in Fiscal Year 1995 to support the decision to procure the MPC system was transitioned from an OCRWM document to a Navy document with the Department of Energy as a cooperating party. OCRWM's contract with Argonne National Laboratory for development of the MPC Environmental Impact Statement was terminated in December 1996. Previously, as a cooperating agency, the Navy had shared in the development of the statement. But with OCRWM's curtailment of work on the MPC, the Navy opted to continue the development of the Environmental Impact Statement, focusing on its needs for a container system to store and transport Navy spent nuclear fuel. The Department proceeded to support the Navy in this task, as a cooperating agency. In September 1996, the Navy issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for internal Departmental concurrence. In November 1996, the Final Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register.
Terminating the legal-weight truck cask system
In November 1995, as a result of budgetary constraints, we decided to terminate the legal-weight truck cask development project. The casks, the GA-4 and the GA-9, were in the midst of Nuclear Regulatory Commission certification at the start of Fiscal Year 1996. Half-scale model testing, which had been initiated in September 1995, was completed in Fiscal Year 1996. General Atomics, the organization under contract to OCRWM for design and certification of the GA-4/9 casks, has elected to pursue certification on its own. After contract close-out in May 1996, all work done by General Atomics while under contract to us was made available to private industry as non-proprietary design information.
The Lessons Learned Report for fabricability of the GA-4/9 trailer and testing of the GA-4/9 tractor/trailer and the Lessons Learned Report for fabricability and testing of the GA-4/9 half-scale model were completed by General Atomics in Fiscal Year 1996.
Spent Nuclear Fuel Dry Transfer System Development and Demonstration Project
OCRWM has been participating with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in a cooperative project to develop a design for a facility with transportable components that can be deployed at multiple sites to transfer spent nuclear fuel between storage and/or transportation casks in a dry environment. The facility would also allow utilities with limited pool space or crane capacity to take advantage of the new generation of higher-capacity, more efficient storage and transport systems, and it could facilitate decommissioning activities at shut down reactors.
The project was undertaken in response to funding and direction provided in the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and the accompanying Conference Committee Report. Under contract, Transnuclear, Inc., finalized the design and developed a Topical Safety Analysis Report, which we submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review in September 1996. We have contracted with Transnuclear for support for the review. A Safety Evaluation Report is expected from the Commission in April 1998.
Pursuant to direction provided in the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy Supply R&D Appropriations language for OCRWM's Civilian Radioactive Waste R&D Program, we are working with EPRI and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) on a joint transportable storage cask demonstration project. As part of this cooperative venture, SMUD has undertaken the procurement of two transportable casks, one of which will be owned by OCRWM. The dry storage demonstration will take place at SMUD's Rancho Seco facility, which is now shut down.
Actinide-Only Burnup Credit Topical Report
In May 1995, OCRWM submitted a Topical Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concerning the methodology for factoring burnup credit into the design of criticality control systems for casks used to transport spent nuclear fuel. Burnup credit accounts for the fact that as spent fuel ages, its reactivity--and the consequent risk of criticality--decline. The use of burnup credit in cask criticality analyses can allow cask designs to accommodate greater volumes of spent fuel in each cask shipment. With greater cask volumes, fewer shipments will be needed to transport spent fuel to a Federal facility, thereby reducing the transportation risk to the public.
To advance our case that burnup credit should be factored into cask design, we have adopted a two-staged approach. First, we are seeking the Commission's approval for burnup credit based on consideration of the effects of neutron-absorbing nuclides, such as actinides, in reducing reactivity. This is a prudent first step, as there is a relatively complete set of empirical data to support the actinide-only Topical Report. Second, we will ask the Commission to approve credit based on the role of key fission product neutron absorbers. Some additional experiments may be needed to support this, and due to reduced funding we have decided to defer a decision about proceeding with the second stage until after the Commission completes its review of our actinide-only Topical Report. At the end of Fiscal Year 1996, we were preparing to respond to the first set of questions from the Commission concerning that report.
In May 1996, we issued a Notice of Proposed Policy and Procedures to solicit comments on options for implementing Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended. Under that section, the Department is required to provide technical assistance and funds to States for training public safety officials of appropriate units of local government and Indian Tribes in safe routine transportation and emergency response procedures. The officials are those in jurisdictions through which spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste will be transported on its way to a repository or an interim storage facility.
The comment period for responding to the Notice closed on September 30, 1996. Some of the major policies and procedures proposed included the following:
Based on the comments received in response to the May Federal Register Notice, the Department anticipates significant changes to the Section 180(c) policy and expects to issue a Notice of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures in 1997. We plan to issue the Final Policy and Procedures in Fiscal Year 1998.
