Climate + Energy Project

Morning, all. Welcome to the KCC Nuclear Power Roundtable, an informational session on recent changes in the nuclear energy industry. This is Maril Hazlett, and I can be here for a few hours this morning, although the session does go all day. CEP’s goal in attending this session is simply to take notes (as always, don’t expect a word perfect transcript) and to make the information accessible to members of the public interested in climate and energy issues. The presenters will also be taped, and the presentations will be available on the KCC website.

FYI, David Klepper of KCStar has a story on nuclear this morning – click here.

Some cool speakers are set up for this morning – Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) will kick off the morning with a talk titled : “Changes in Nuclear Technology and the Nuclear Industry.” That will be followed by Brian O’Connell, Director of the Nuclear Waste Program Office of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC).

Then there will be a break, hopefully with snacks. Hopefully. After that, Dave Matthews – no, not that one! not the musician who’s very into organic produce – but the Dave Matthews who is Director of New Reactor Licensing, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will speak on the “New Nuclear Plant Licensing Program.”

8:45 a.m.

Larry Holloway begins with introduction – no new baseload built in KS since 1985. As many folks know. Introduces Paul Genoa, of NEI – check above for the website link as to who they are. Somewhat like a trade association, but they represent 100 % of nuclear industry in U.S., with a lot of tech experience.

Paul Genoa, Reasoned Expectations for New Nuclear Plant Construction. Finding a middle ground between high expectations and total pessimism.

2007. Operating performance. Great year for nuclear fleet – 104 plants in US, about 10% of installed capacity in US, and generates 20% of electricity because of high capacity factor. Record output – 807 billion kilowatt hours in 2007. 5,222 MW of power uprates approved, 912 MW of uprates pending, 1,751 MW of uprates expected. What is an uprate? MH has no idea. $16.80 per MWh production.

License renewals continue, and plant restarts (facilities that were closed) ongoing. 48 plant licesnse renewals granted, which helps upgrade operations and infrastructure. 15 renewal apps under review.

New Plant Development. the procedure for application. (1) Site permits – environental reviews, etc. – suitablity may depend on plant design (2) design certifications – what type of plant will it be, what kind of construction and operability, etc., based on French model of standardization- (3) Combined Operating and COnstruction application. LOts of applications, limited funds to build them. 17 companies or so developing pre-licensing apps for over 30 power plants. Nothing confirmed. These companies are hedging bets by working thru process. They are betting that nuclear power might be right for them in moving forward. The appps are a substantial investment, but none are committed. First wave of plants might be constructed and in commercial operation by 2015, if apps are approved and financed and agreed upon.

Nuclear has very long lead time. Actions for companies to prepare (1) order long lead items, like reactors and othe rspecialty parts, which come from Japan? MH missed it – and if you end up not using htem, you can resell, they are very valuable (2) site preparation and permitting, environmental review, build roads and support strucutes (3) oops. Sorry.

Expectations – success would mean 4-8 new power plants were online in 2015. If they were on budget and on schedule, there would be second wave behind them. Suppliers would need to ramp back up their production mechanisms 0 that capactity woud have to grow. Secnd wave will be watching first wave. Then nuclear can mkae significant contribution to electricity future and carbon reductions by 2030.

Right now, projects are in very early stage of deveopment. Som much of it is risk identification and mitigation. Moves very slow. Some companies will back off, new companies will move in. Players will change, companies will change. Nclear won’t be right for everyone, it doesn’t work that way.

Risk reduction in nuclear. They have to learn from their history, which wasn’t pretty. They got going too fast, and learned some lessons the hard way, like Three MIle ISland – operating lessons, workers, construction, etc. The licensing process was also poorly structures, and project mgmt was poor initially. Also some poor business conditions. Cost overruns, poor capacity, fuel supply problems.

How to change this. Today indsutry is much more mature. 90% range capacity factors.Fuel outages last uch less time. Lots, lots of risk management, and the experts now have experience, this is not as new technology. Designs modified.

Licensing process. Restructured. More stable regulation. More oversight with hearing boards. Review groups who understand design.Better licensiging makes it more affordable to build plants, and public gets nvolved early in the process, opportunities for hearings. Public needs to get involved as soon as possible, to express their concerns. Much better work environment and safety culture, and better cnstruction – more modular constrction.

supply change for new nuclear plants is starting to gear up in response to new interest in nuclear. Work force challenges: nuclear engineerign enrollments up dramatically – 1,933 in 2006-2007. Developing skilled work force. Community college programs as well, focusing on local communities.

Economics of new baseload – all energy will be more expensive in future. New plants arorund $70-80 MWH range. LOan guarentees from federal government, and rate policies at state level. Thes enuclear plants will be competitive with baseload coal, especially with carbon regulation coming – that will alter the dynamics drastically. Nuclear helps companies hedge bets. There is no silver bullet, we need portfolio of energy moving forward.

Remainng problems – new licensing process untested. Costs going up a lot, India and China competing eith us for these materials. No firm capital costs to build new plant . Commercial terms hard to neogitate with vendors accordingly, large, unknown financial commitments for often small companies. And some of the designs not tested re costs here.

Compared to carbon capture and sequstration (CCS) technlogies, though, their cost and expense – any of these choices going forward are huge in capital, and they dwarf the size of companies expected to make these investments. Electric companies are highly capital intensive. They have invest $3 to make $1. And electric companies are relatively small overall – ie, compared to oil industry companies. This is a mismatch. Some electric companies are trying to merge, but this is often a problem with state regulators. Small companies are facing large, risky commercial projects, and we have to address this some way.

Hopefully nuclear has learned from mistakes. There is definitely a need for new baseload, but it wll take bipartisan support, public support, energy efficiency, etc. – we have a big challenge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, yet electricity demand is rising. Public support – communities around xisting plants are supportive. Environmental community increasingly supportive.

Approach to new consruction is slow, measured. But coal-fired capacity is facing huge challenges. There will be no quick fix, though – soonest you will have nuclear plants is 2015-16. Gas-fired capacity will probably have to fill in in the interim, and we have to extend life of existing nuclear plants also.

In KS – you 75% rely on coal, 20% on nuclear, minor renewables. Your options are limited. Your demand in also projected by EIA to rise by 2030. Your historic reliance on coal also means your CO2 emissions will rise.

average capacity of new nuclear plant is 1,350 MW. That would avoid about 8 million metric tons of CO2 annually, about the equivalent of 1.6 million passenger cars

Brian O’Connell, Nuclear Waste, NARUC – Nuclear Spent Fuel Issues

New event in nuclear world – in nuclear waste, we produce it a LOT slower. We have worked with problem of spent fuel for 35 years. Thorny issue. Nuclear waste always an issue, and public perceptions are very concerned. People don’ t know a lot about it, but they have heard its a problem, and so, no new nuclear plants…. but I think its more complicated than that.

Supposedly, spent fuel was supposed to be reprocessed. Some of it, sure, it’s done in other countries. But in 1976 Pres. Ford put that plan on hold here. Carter administration also did not want to support reprocessing as strategy to solve nuclear waste disposal problem.

State Interests in Nuclear Waste – health and safety, transportation, environment, financial, power supply. Some states had enormous concerns about waste.

Nuclear Waste Policy Act – passed on last day of session in Congress in 1982. Says that federal government is responsible for nuclear waste disposal. Those who benefit from electrical generation from the plants shall pay for disposal, rather than taxpayers at large (although there is overlap between ratepayers and taxpayers). Disposal was supposed to begin in 1998. Um. Didn’t happen. Funding for initiative over 8 years has been $1 billion less than requests. Plus, no one wanted to host the disposal facility. TX, Hanford WA, and Yucca Mountain NV. Yucca Mtn. chosen. (MH: a sacred site for many Native American cultures). Didn’t happen (or, hasn’t happened yet), for multiple reasons. Regardless, the waste disposal problem is unsolved. Also, huge public controversy. So, all that waste is still spread all around country in various states, instead of at one centralized site. 31 sites, most east of Mississippi. Armed guards. 14 sites REALLY want the waste moved. Will take 24 years to move the waste. Highly exacting conditions to do the transport.

Nuclear waste – many different kinds. Some is destined for geologic repository. Defense Dept. uses nuclear as well. Many research reactors, including one in Manhattan, KS, very small. New Mexico actually has geologic repository, small one.

Spent fuel keeps on accumulating. We will need a second Yucca Mtn soon. We at least need one, or we need to figure out reprocessing.

Lots – he gets asked why industry didn’t think about waste to begin with, back when they got started. They did. When waste comes out of reactor, it goes to cooling pool for five years. Originally, they were supposed to go to reprocessing facility – there were three commercial reprocessors, but only partially reprocessers – but it was unknown what to do with the waste from the waste. Nuclear Waste Act cut out the reprocessing, went straight to storage in geologic repoository “fancy name for hole in the ground” – where it could be stored and even retrieved.

Now at a stalemate. Reprocessing is being considered. A repository hasn’t even started, really – the Yucca Mtn. hole was from an experiment to figure out the geology and if it was suitable. Concluded that it was. Site has been approved for DOE to license the site ?? um. MH may have missed that. Waste would get transferred over roads and railways. Waste would be stored in packages underground. DOE would license the project. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA, DOT also involved. HE goes into the degree of radiation exposure in human life, etc. 10,000 years for fuel to degrade to safe level.

Spent Fuel Transportation. Public anxious despite the safety record. Public doesn’t understand that spent fuel has been shipped for years, without incident, deaths, radiation records, etc. Moves without lots of fanfare. Governors are notified, the proper people are informed, state agencies invited to participate. (WIPP facility in NEw Mexico) Yuccan Mtn would start no sooner than 2017, maybe 2020 (first shipments will begin) and continue for 24 years. If waste goes by highway, state can pick route. If rail, depends if state regulates it. State will get funding to train emergency respnders in radioactive materials and how to respond to radioactive disasters. Concerns since 9/11 about terrorism and security, if there could be highjacking. The material will be monitored by satellite, constantly. All that will be worked out in transportation scenarios.

Nuclear waste legislation – has a very bad track record, especially if it has to do with Yucca Mountain.

Other option- continued on-site management dispersed across country (like it is now), in cooling pools and etc.

If nothing else done right now, we will need two Yucca Mountains (given its statutory capacity allotment of 70,000 MT (million ton??) cap). Unless that cap is lifted. Or – you make a commitment to “advanced recycling.”

Other countries with nuclear, the global connections of the nuclear industry – how to work out the problems with reprocessing and potential fuel enrichment (MH, like they worry about North Korea and Iran doing, using the fuel for weapons development).

Congress is unlikely to fund or commit to reprocessing project. Reporcessing is done in France – separates out the plutonium, dangerous for weapons development. Technology is decades away in the US (because US won’t do the plutonium removal). There are siting and transportation concerns with reprocessing as well, as well as storage issues – you will still need a repository.

“Some utilities consider lack of disposal a deal-breaker; others don’t”

websites – www.rw.doe.gov, www.gnep.energy.gov, www.nrc.gov, www.nei.org (MH, you will have to cut and paste those into your browser, no time to link)

(MH – these are two very interesting presentations to have back to back.)

Overheard, afterwards – “10,000 years? We usually talk about our children and our grandchildren will do. This is more like what SPECIES…”

Break for coffee. Or in my case, chocolate.

OK, back at it.

Dave Matthews, Division of New Reactor Licensing – New Reactors: NRC Plans, Processes, and Progress (new office as of 2006)

former director of decommissioning at NRC. Then did license renewal. Now does new licensing.

At NRC, health safety and environment main priority. Also interested in reducing financial risk to investors in nuclear. They regulate and protect public from dangers of radiation. Five member commission led by a chairperson, comissioners serve five year terms. 4,000 employees, budget of near $1 billion, 90% paid by user fees. they regulate both nuclear plants, and fuel processing facilities (about 45 of those)

time lag between construction permit, and operating license, before and after Three Mile Island – six years longer after 1979, than prior. NRC not only part of licensing process.

MH: two things going on when these folks ttalk about licensing: (1) making the process shorter, and (2) making it safer.

New nuclear will be built more quickly than in 80s. Enegineering needs to be completed before construction begins (MH: it wasn’t before? I just learned something).Modular construction used, fabrication of components begins, and site prep begins very early. Goal in new licensing – better safety, more predictable regulatory process, meaningful public participation, enhanced safety for future plants/ take advantage of new technology, independent and credible regulators.

Nuclear renaissance – what has helped – Energy POlicy Act of 2005 had incentives (more risk insurance and indemnification, tax credits for first 6,000 MW from new reactors, $3 billion in research, loan guarantees)

Licensing process (1) early site permit, (2) design certification (3) combined license. Preconstruction and construction. Much on design concerns here, MH misses it… but a design decision cannot be appealed by public hearing. As long as the utility sticks with that design.

Basically – extremely high levels of licensing going on right now, for proposed new nuclear plants.

Tom Connelly, KS Low Level Radwaste Compact, KDHE

What’s happening in KS with radioactive waste. This is not exactly his real job, he says – but two weeks ago he got thrown into it.

A little history – KS NE, OK, and some other snearby tates formed compact to store low level waste. NE offered to host. U.S. Ecology given contract for site. Then the politics changed. License denied by new NE governor, and lawsuits ensued. In 1999 the Compact entered the lawsuit against NE, and won a decision. NE ejected from compact and held liable for costs of developing site. Compact then passed resolution to defer efforts until the need got greater, and need for public health and safety. They are just monitoring climate of the issue at the moment, allowing disposal/ transport of waste to other sites. But Barnwell TX facility is closing in July to outside states, so “interesting to see what wll happen after that.” Compact is “in monitoring mode at the moment.”

low level rad waste isn’t just waste out of a power plant. KS has 14 approved export permits for radwaste (export beyond the Compact), only one of which is Wolf Creek. Larger hospitals, universities – carbon 14, etc. Several sites in state have radium constamination for radium dial industry, soil must be removed.

Q&A session, Larry Holloway moderating

For developing new nuclear plants, are the concerns different for regulated versus deregulatred states in electricity? and how does the financing work?

Answer – yes. And independent merchant plant might not be commerically viable, in a restructured market. More risk to mitigate (ie, long-term purchase power agreements). Loan guarantees also help. Most plants will be in conventionally regulated environment.

Q: are nuclear plants going into states with higher electricity costs?

A: MH didn’t follow. It wasn’t a yes/no answer. Apparently, the market is a whole lot more complicated, and it varies widely by state. And decommissioning costs vary by type of plant – merchant plant, v. other.

Q: how does France handle its plutonium?

A: very carefully. But where public understands issues there is not as much resistance to geological storage.

Another point – if issue arises where public safety is concerned, then the licensing process can be halted. A failsafe of sorts, where other appeal options do not exist.

Lots of technical stuff, which MH skips, sorry techies. Lots about safeguards. Safe, safe, safe. Integrated systems. Technology much more advanced than it was, elegant engineering solutions. Much better computer-aided designs, probabilistic risk assessment, etc.

I had two questions that I didn’t get submitted for the Q&A – one was asked, how are other countries handling nuclear waste.

The second was one I knew the answer to, so that makes it kind of not fair :) but since the article is a good read, I will post it here: I wanted to ask where the major sources of fuel (uranium) were located, and how much of that the US controlled. I am interested in this as an issue of energy security and national security, which matters a great deal to me personally.

I found an interesting answer in this Council for Foreign Relations article. If you are interested in more in-depth information on uranium supply (which didn’t come up in this session, unless I missed it), definitely check this out. A quotable:

Currently, there are nearly one thousand commercial, research, and ship reactors worldwide, more than thirty are under construction, and over seventy are in planning stages. The world currently uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand has remained relatively steady because of efficiency improvements, and it is projected to grow “only slightly” through 2010. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as “fast-reactor” technology could lengthen those supplies by more than two thousand years. Experts say spent fuel can be reprocessed for use in reactors but currently is less economical than new fuel.

Where is the fuel located?

More than half the world’s uranium-mining production comes from Australia, Kazakhstan, and Canada. Experts say Kazakhstan is on track to becoming the largest producer of uranium in the world. Although Australia has the largest supply, access is constrained by a 1982 law that limits uranium mining in the country. Recent increases in uranium demand have sparked debate in Australia, pitting the mining industry and nuclear advocates against environmentalists and activists for indigenous land rights. Other impediments to increases in mining in Australia and elsewhere include the need for infrastructure, environmental concerns, and a lack of experienced workers.

However, once you get the fuel, you also have to process it. One of the largest fuel processing industries is found in Russia, which is reprocessing fuel from former warheads left over from the Cold War. A lot of the current US uranium supply comes from Russia.

Hey, an interesting question is asked.

Q: how long are licenses for nuclear plants?

A: Forty years by statute. Then a very detailed renewal process (including a look at waste mgmt), to get another 20 years. They are designed to last much longer.

Q: Is it possible for central states compact to join another compact that has a functioning waste disposal site?

A: that was looked at – ie, partnering with TX – those are possiblities – but decision was made at this tme based on information from generators to put that on hold indefinitely.

A2: Lots of states confront this problem. KS is not alone in problems with low level waste disposal.

A3: Dry storage was one of the responses to this problem (MH storage outside of cooling pools). Not necessarily the most economic. However, the industry has reduced level of waste being generated by 96% since the 1970s. What we are faced with is small amount of very active waste. We are also trying to change plant design to further minimize waste – ie, filtering water. If you leave the filter in long enough, you get higher level waste, so you want to change the process to keep the waste level low.

Q: Has Europe been building plants all along?

A: (basically) Yes. So has Asia. Japan rapidly embraced nuclear. A lot of this has to do with energy security, and Japan didn’t have a lot of other options. South Korea, too. China, India also, aggressively moving forward. Now Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey starting. (long list of other countries)

 

 

 

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org