Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning
Waste Management Operations
33rd Summer Seminar of NUCE
Atomic Energy Society of Japan
August 25, 2017

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM..

Waste Management– Plant Background– Planning– Characterization– Primary System Decontamination & Hot Spot Reduction– Spent Fuel Management– Dismantlement & Demolition– Waste Treatment & Disposal Options in the US– Waste Disposition© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Page 2

AECOM
Financial Strength

Acquisition & Integration– Greater than $40B backlog– Experience in nuclear power plant acquisitions– Ability to provide appropriate guarantees and reachagreement on terms with client and stakeholders– Experience in transition and management of nuclear sites(largest in U.S. DOE complex)– $18B in annual revenue– Over 50 companies integrated since 1990

– Board level initiative / reorganizing to growdecommissioning business

D&D and Technical Expertise– 60 years of continuous involvement in the nuclear powerindustry

Management & Operational Capability totake over Site License–

Experience as a non-utility licensed operator of a
nuclear facility for decommissioning purposes– 30+ years of nuclear decommissioning experience–– Over 1,650 facilities decommissioned (including 20+
production / test reactors)

Proven ability to manage multiple D&D projects
simultaneously–

Managed multi-billion D&D budgets in 2016

– In-depth knowledge and experience with the NRC–

Have incorporated 3 Yankees leadership experience in
D&D and ISFSI-only operations– Local regulatory knowledge– Expertise with plant decommissioning and used fuelstewardship– Knowledge of plant policies, procedures andexpectations© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Page 3

The Heritage & Evolution of Legacy
Companies
We have built astrong heritage fromdelivering a betterworld© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Page 4

Connecticut Yankee
Plant Background© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Page 5

Connecticut Yankee (CY) PWR
Plant Data
• Construction Permit Issued: May 26, 1964
• Operating License Issued: December 27, 1974
• Commercial Operation: January 1, 1968
• Ceased Operations: December 9, 1996
• Licensed Capacity: 1825 MWth / 560 MWe• NSS Supplier: Westinghouse 4 Loop PWR• AE/Constructor: Stone & Webster• License: DPR-61 (Docket No. 50-213, 72-39)• Site Size: 525 Acres (2.1 x 106 m2)© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY - Pre-Decommissioning Plant
Photo© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee Plant Sitefollowing Demolition Activities© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee – Aerial View
Today (with ISFSI on right)

ISFSI: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Decommissioning Schedules
3 Yankees© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY – Regulatory Issues during
Decommissioning• Federal Regulations• New NRC regulations for Decommissioning• Generic Environmental Impact Statements for decommissioning projects• License Termination• Creation of Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual(MARSSIM)• Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and EPA• Regulatory Challenges• ISFSI encountered local opposition  Required litigation for resolution• Groundwater contamination was discovered  Required extensive
radiological and non-radiological cleanup• State Release Criteria was stricter than the NRC limit of 0.25 mSv/year© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY – Other Key Takeaways• Involve all stakeholders early and continuously• Agree on end state criteria  Drives the project strategy decisions• Obtain approval from stakeholders (NRC, EPA, and State) on the end state
as early as possible• NRC is not the only regulator• In the US, States have local jurisdiction of D&D sites• EPA regulations for chemical and industrial cleanup (RCRA/TSCA)• EPA and States have more stringent radiological release criteria© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Decommissioning and Waste
Management Planning© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Page 13

Connecticut Yankee
Waste Management Planning• Waste Management Planning is integrated into the Plant’s overall
Decommissioning Planning• Key Components for Decommissioning & WM Planning• Detailed Facility and Systems Characterization– Before and after shutdown• Activation Analysis• Characterization data drives the development of:• Waste Management Plans• Selection of Decontamination Method– For example, Primary System Full Scale Decontamination• Dismantlement and Demolition Methods© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY – Waste Management Planning• Other Key Factors that impact Waste Management include:• Spent Fuel Management• Establishment of End State Conditions– Can you “abandon” certain structures and systems in place if they meet
release criteria?
– Can you rubblize and bury certain concrete products on site as fill?

• Site-Specific Cost Estimate & Schedule• Cold & Dark Strategy• Flush & Drain Systems© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Characterization© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Site Characterization• Primary Goal: Obtain enough understanding of the location and concentrationof contaminants on the site to make project strategy decisions• Confirm the extent of known contaminates• Identify unknown contaminates at the Site  Characterization strategy
should be developed to enable this• Thorough characterization is critical for:• Defining the project scope• Establishing a sound basis for planning• Bounding project costs andrisks• Validating compliance with the D&D
Generic Environmental Impact Statement© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Site Characterization

Detailed activation
analysis• RPV• RPV internals• Biological shield• Etc.

Historical assessmentof all known surveys
and sample
documentation
Discussion of any
known leaks or priorspills with plant
personnel

Site
Characterization
Identified non-radioactive
hazardous materials• Asbestos• Lead• Mercury• Etc.

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Radiological surveys,
soil sampling andground water
sampling
Detailed radiologicalsurveys of area andsystems inside of the
RCA

Connecticut Yankee
Characterization• CY’s characterization was not initially comprehensive• The characterization was enhanced in 2003 before major dismantling• Extensive Cs-137 and Sr-90 groundwater contamination from the tankfarm was identified late in the process

Significant unplanned soil remediation efforts© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Primary System
Decontamination & Hot Spot
Reduction© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Primary System Decontamination
CY and Maine Yankee (MY)Connecticut Yankee

Maine Yankee

Siemens CORD D UVEPRI Decontamination for
Decommissioning (DFD)

DF 15.9

DF 31.5• Used installed plant equipment• Improper maintenance following
permanent shutdown
 Leaks  Decon halted
 Reduced DF

Generated higher waste volumes
compared to CORD D UVCORD D UV: Chemical Oxidation Reduction Decontamination, Decommissioning, Ultra Violet
EPRI: Electric Power Research Institute
DF: Decontamination Factor© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY Primary System Decon
Lessons Learned
Purpose of Primary System
Decontamination

Important Considerations

Reduce dose to plant
personnel• Has Co-60 already decayed since shutdown?
• Are the cost savings of personnel dose greater thanthe cost of performing decontamination?

Reduce volume of higherlevel solid waste• Will decontamination reduce the waste classificationof the Primary System?
• Are the savings from reduced disposal cost greaterthan the cost of performing decontamination?
• Will the decontamination process produce Level 1
waste (Class C or GTCC in US)?

• Data for deciding whether to perform Primary System Decontamination comesfrom the comprehensive Site Characterization.
•

If data support performing decontamination, start the process as soon as possible• If using plant installed equipment, this equipment must be fully maintained until
after completion of the decontamination process.

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee – Hot Spot
Reduction during D&D / WM Ops• In addition to the initial primary system full scaledecontamination, CY utilized a gamma camera to survey
different plant areas and determine hot spots in those areasthat would impact worker personnel dose
• These hot spots were identified and removed independentof other operations© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Spent Fuel Management© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Spent Fuel Management– US Department of Energy (DOE) was assigned responsibility to site,build, and operate a deep geological repository for the disposal of HighLevel Waste and spent nuclear fuel• There are no spent fuel reprocessing facilities in the US– Repository Funding: Fee from electric utilities on nuclear-generated
electricity– DOE executed standard contracts with the nuclear utilities for the
disposition of their spent fuel• DOE was expected to start accepting fuel in 1998

– DOE was unable to open the facility  Breached contract for spent
fuel disposition• Many utilities have sued or settled with the US Government to pay for spent
fuel management• 25% of US spent fuel inventory is at dry storage facilities (ISFSI)© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

ISFSI Spent Fuel Management @ 3
Yankees• Centralized common corporate management for all 3 ISFSI facilities– Yankee Rowe
– Connecticut Yankee– Maine Yankee• Each site has limited management personnel and security staffing• Common services are performed by common resources– Licensing– Engineering– Project support– Financial services, etc.

• Sites implement a “firehouse” approach: security staff also performs
monitoring and maintenance of the facilities on a rotating basis© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee Spent Fueland GTCC Waste• Canister Type: NAC Multi-Purpose Container (MPC)• USNRC Docket/Certificate of Compliance: 72-1025• Number of Fuel Assemblies: 1,019 (1,825 MWth Westinghouse fuel)• Number of Fuel Assemblies per Canister: 24 - 26
• Number of Canisters of Spent Fuel: 40• Number of Canisters of HLW: 3• GTCC (Level 1 in Japan) RPV internals segmented via ultra-high pressure
abrasive water jetting• Cut and loaded into 64 fuel assembly sized canisters• All spent fuel is currently stored on the ISFSI pad at CY© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Vertical Concrete Cask (VCC)© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Spent Nuclear Fuel Loading– Dependent on fuel utilization, fuel assemblies may require cooling in the spent fuelpool for 5 to 7 years prior to being able to load into dry storage canisters© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee
ISFSI Facility– Involve stakeholders early in ISFSI siting and spent fuel management operations– Moving fuel from wet to dry operations has significant impact on decommissioning
schedule© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Dismantlement & Demolition© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Connecticut Yankee – Sequenceof Dismantling Operations– Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and Large Components• RPV Internals• 4 x Steam Generators and Pressurizer• Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors• Primary Loop & Surgical Removal of Contaminated Systems• Reactor Pressure Vessel– Facility Demolition• Primary Auxiliary Building / Control Building / Service Building• Turbine Building• Containment Building• Spent Fuel Building– Soil and Groundwater Remediation Cleanup
Three parallel critical paths• Fuel transfer to ISFSI and SFPI D&D• Containment Building D&D• Tank Farm / PAB remediation and groundwater restoration / monitoring© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Connecticut Yankee – Large
Component Removal Photos

Photos Clockwise from left:© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

1.

RCP (Reactor Coolant Pump) Removal

2.

Pressurizer Removal

3.

S/G Lower Assembly Removal• At CY, the steam domes were
removed and dispositioned as
non-rad waste

4.

RPV Removal & Packaging

Page 33

Connecticut Yankee – March 2005

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee — August
2005© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee — January
2006: 85% complete© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee — August
2006© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY — Significant Dismantling
Challenges• Soil & Groundwater Remediation- Continuous pump and treat system used to lower groundwater table to allow
soil excavation/removal- Large amounts of soil excavated up to 40 feet (12.3 m) deep to bedrock• Soil Remediation required prior to removal of adjacent structures- Required temporary structure support- Strategic planning for soil haul routes- Multiple shift operations- Alternative packaging containers• Due to the contamination levels under the Tank Farm, soil remediation
had to be performed under a containment tent

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY — Soil Excavation andRemediation

Photos show extensive soil excavation and remediation of below grade
contaminated areas under the Primary Auxiliary Building (down to bedrock)© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY – Additional Dismantling
Challenges• Containment structure demolition had to begin prior to work completion in the
Spent Fuel Building (structures were 15 cm apart)- Devised innovative method to remove the containment structure from bottom to top- Allowed work to continue safely in the Spent Fuel Building- Allowed for safe rubblization of structure for packaging and off-site shipment- Method was devised based on experience gained from MY Containment demolition- This methodology required significantly less time compared to MY- MY used explosive demolition, which requires extensive planning time

• Heavy equipment was used to access and remove contaminated systems- Maximized the safer use of yellow iron and equipment for removal instead of manuallabor and small tools• Temporary waste storage areas had to be established to stage outbound waste
shipments• Containment tents were assembled to allow outdoor processing© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee – Containment
Structure Demo

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY – Containment Structure
Demolition© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY – Containment Structure
Demolition– AECOM has employed this demolition technique on another containment
structure in the USA© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Schedule Reduction at CY from
Lessons Learned at MY– Demolition Approach: “Rubblization and Direct Disposal”• Demolishing a structure with some systems still in place• Processing all of the resulting materials as Exempt or BSFR waste (in Japan, Level 3)– Advantage: Despite higher waste volume, lower overall project costand reduced risk compared to labor-intensive decontamination andsurveying– Result: 1 year schedule savings for the last 70% of the CY project– Additional Considerations• Shorter schedule  Rate of off-site waste shipments must increase• Avoid double handling & processing: integrate packaging where possible
directly from the demolition activities© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY Demolition Sequence & StatusMap© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY Final Status Survey (FSS)
Sequence & Status Map© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Waste Treatment and Disposal
Options in the USA© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Page 47

Radwaste Classifications
In the USA– Exempt / Bulk Survey for Release (BSFR)
State of Tennessee BSFR Program & NRC 10 CFR 20.2002• Allows for disposal in RCRA-type landfills (non-radioactive hazardous waste)• Must provide dose analyses showing less than 10 μSv/year to the public• Criteria similar to the Level 3 waste category in Japan– Class A waste (NRC 10 CFR 61.55)• Suited for shallow land disposal• Usually segregated from other waste types in the disposal site
• Most waste fits within Level 2 waste category in Japan– Class B/C waste (NRC 10 CFR 61.55)• Waste must meet more rigorous requirements on form to ensure disposal stability• Class C waste requires additional measures at the disposal site to prevent inadvertent intrusion• Falls between Level 2 and Level 1 waste categories in Japan– Greater than Class C waste (NRC 10 CFR 61.55)• Primarily RPV internals• Stored with the spent fuel on ISFSI pads
• Level 1 waste category in Japan© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Location of LLW and Exempt /BSFR Disposal Sites in the USA

#
1
2
3
4
5
6

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Site

Compact States
ClassesWCS
TX, VT
Exempt, A, B & C
ES-Barnwell
SC, NJ, CT
A, B & C
ES-Clive
None
A (Exempt)
USE-Richland WA, AK, HI, ID, MT, OR,
A, B & C
UT, WY, CO, NV, NM
None
ExemptUSE-GVTN BSFR (4None
ExemptLandfills)

Off-Site Waste Treatment Optionsin the USA• Bear Creek Processing Facility- Sort and Segregation- Compaction: VR 6:1 (Dry Active Waste)- Incineration: VR 100:1- Metal Melt (Recycling into shield blocks)• Resin processing (THOR process)Erwin, Tennessee• Other facilities exist for Specialty Wastes
with limited potential for use during D&D operations
Classification

Typical Processing

Reason

BSFRClass A

None, direct disposal

Treatment not cost effective• Disposal options available• Competition reduces disposal costs

Class BClass C

Off-site Treatment & Volume
Reduction

Avoiding high disposal costs justifies
treatment© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Waste Optimization - UK
• Limited disposal options or direct disposal costs are too high
 Processing and treatment becomes cost-effective• On-site or at dedicated process and treatment facilities• In the UK, AECOM manages the country’s Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) and the
National LLW Strategy• Manage the destiny of all the UK’s LLW to minimize the amount disposed in the LLWR
• Segregation, packaging, transport, recycling, incineration, supercompaction, and metal melt

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee Waste
Disposition© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Connecticut Yankee — Waste
Volumes and Categories
Estimated waste masses & volumes from the Connecticut Yankee D&D
Contaminated Structures / Soils
Large Components
Systems and Components

lbs
374,001,107
2,751,812
28,247,081

ft3
3,667,033
25,309500,309

tons
187,001
1,376
14,124

MT
169,647
1,248
12,813m3
103,838717
14,167

Total - Contaminated SSCs

405,000,000

4,192,651

202,500

183,708

118,722

Approximate breakdown by waste classification
Mass (Metric Tons)

Contaminated Structures / Soils
Large Components
Systems and Components
Total - Contaminated SSCs

Class AClass A Shielded

Class
B/C

GTCC

1,808
901
3,848
6,557

178
203
380

33
33

9
9

Class A / BSFR

Total

167,839
129
8,762
176,730

169,647
1,248
12,813
183,708~80% to 85% of materials inside of the RCA can meet BSFR / Exempt requirements© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

CY - General Highlights ofTreatment and Disposition• Segregation of waste  Maximize BSFR sent to Tennessee landfills• Concrete debris  Size Reduced for lower disposal cost
• Waste sent to Clive Disposal Facility• Majority classified as Exempt Quantity (49 CFR 173.436)• This waste could also have met requirements to be BSFR material• Direct burial of large components• Resins and filters (Class B/C)  Sent to off-site processing• Debris and soil (Class A)  Direct burial• Waste water treatment operations in parallel with D&D operations• Various transportation methods- Truck with intermodal container- Heavy haul transport- Barge slip

- Truck  Transfer to rail

- No on-site rail available© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Connecticut Yankee — Waste
Management Challenges• Additional volume of waste generated due to contaminated soil removal• Off-site waste shipments could not keep up with waste generation from
D&D activities• CY had no on-site rail connection
 Waste management had to be horizontally integrated into all site project
operations• Competitive disposal pricing: Connecticut Yankee faced higher prices© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Conclusion© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Page 56

Lessons Learned• “Rubblization and direct disposal” is generally more cost effective than a“decontaminate and segregate” approach– Choice is based on a project specific cost benefit analysis driven by waste disposal options anddisposal pricing for each plant– AECOM has utilized both approaches in prior D&D work

• 80% or more of the LLW will be classified as BSFR or Exempt• Waste stream characterization must be accurate, thorough, and early– Waste characteristics known prior to waste generation– Develop a comprehensive plan for disposition of all waste streams• Decommissioning  High volume and high production-rate waste disposal– Vastly different scale from waste management during operations– Relevant experience and processes are critical to success• Start by fully understanding the existing waste options and create
opportunities that may not presently exist– For example, dispose of Exempt (Level 3) waste on site if it meets the site release criteria© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Lessons Learned• Decommissioning is often referred to as a “large waste project”, but
understanding the full scope of the work is critical– Reliance on waste experience alone  Missed opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings• Plan for establishing a Waste Management area on site

– Waste Handling & Packaging areas require a large dedicated footprint– Storage areas can impact background radiation levels in areas planned for characterization or Final
Status Surveys– Plan the eventual relocation and elimination of the waste handling, packaging, and shipping area

• Waste Management inefficiency can slow the entire project– Maintain redundancy in handling equipment (fork trucks, survey instruments, scales, etc.)– Perform on-site inspection and repair of shipping containers• Maintain at least a rudimentary welding program• Set-up a repair area and segregated storage for damaged containers• Establish a simple process to visibly identify damaged containers– Invest in simple equipment to support safe inspection and survey of shipping containers such as stair
towers– Develop a simple and robust process for releasing waste shipments from the site

© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM.

Page 58

Thank You© 2017 AECOM

Copyright © 2017 AECOM

Page 59