maintaining department of energy (doe) waste disposition pathways in today’s uncertain budgetary...
TRANSCRIPT
Maintaining Department of Energy (DOE) Waste Disposition Pathways in Today’s Uncertain Budgetary Environment
Presented by: Lori WestJuly 2015
2
Commercial Providers
20+ year history of developing technologies and systems to meet DOE needs
•Invested in and piloted technologies to address DOE’s “difficult-to-treat” wastes
•Used these technologies to perform treatability studies to demonstrate final waste form characteristics
•Fielded technologies to address unique on-site problems
•Built fixed-base, high throughput facilities for volume and mass reduction
3
Commercial Providers – Attributes
• Ability to respond quickly in the marketplace
• Willingness to accept moderate to high risk
• Privately funded
• Robust licenses
• Broad spectrum of capabilities
• Very adaptable to unique waste forms
• Ability to innovate
4
Benefits to DOE Avoiding Expense
Commercially developed technologies / capabilities have formed much of the basis for DOE long-range plans for clean-up
Project Needed DOE Onsite Capability Commercial Providers
Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Mound Closures
• Sort, Survey, Package, Stabilize• Thermal Treatment
Technologies for Volume Reduction
• LLW/LLMW Disposal Facilities
• Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Oak Ridge, TN
• Duratek, Oak Ridge, TN• Energy Solutions, Clive, UT
Hanford Suspect TRU and CH/RH TRU
• WRAP, Cool & Dim• WRAP 2 and 2A• M-91
• Perma-Fix Northwest, Richland, WA (CH TRU)
• Energy Solutions, Clive, UT
Miscellaneous Specialty Storage/Disposal Projects
• Class C/Greater-than-Class C Disposal Facilities
• TRU and Spent Fuel Interim Storage Facilities
• Energy Solutions, Clive, UT• Waste Control Specialists,
Andrews, TX
5
The Impact of Rocky Flats
• Commercial providers were encouraged to develop DOE-centric capabilities through favorable procurements
• Providers aggressively pursued licenses and permits to expand treatment capabilities
• DOE and State regulators worked with commercial providers
• Significant cost savings and avoidances to DOE and its contractors using commercial capabilities
• Rocky Flats Project set new standard for Site
D&D / Remediation: $36B reduced to $6B
6
The Impact of Rocky Flats (concluded)• Similar savings realized at Fernald and Mound• DOE and its contractors developed significant
relationships to take advantage of the commercial supply chain
• DOE sought to attract commercial suppliers through competitive procurements
• Commercial providers continue to develop capabilities almost exclusive to DOE
• Many spin-off capabilities in areas such as bulk transportation, container manufacture, in-field processing, etc.
7
ARRA
• Infusion of funds to “shovel-ready” projects• Funds applied to DOE wastes in storage across
the complex– Created jobs nation-wide– Boosted local economies– Produced highly specialized / trained work force to
replace existing, aging work force at DOE sites– Reduced long-term waste storage, surveillance, and
maintenance cost and risk to DOE and Contractors– Encouraged expansion of commercial provider
capabilities / throughputs
8
ARRA
At Hanford, ARRA funds were used to create more efficient use of offsite commercial facilities for suspect TRU waste treatment
Cost Avoidance – $550M
Originally, Hanford’s suspect TRU wastes
were to be dispositioned through the $1.2B M-91
Facility
Today, 90% of Hanford’s suspect TRU wastes will be dispositioned using offsite
commercial capabilities at a cost of $300M…
The remaining 10% will be dispositioned through a highly specialized onsite capability
with a life-cycle cost of $385M
9
Post ARRAShifts in funding priorities
• Drove staffing levels to below pre-ARRA levels
• Necessitated placement of DOE facilities into a “Minimum Safe Operational” condition– Some went “Cold and Dark”
and others “Cool and Dim” • Drove arbitration and work force reductions
complex wide• Settlement Agreements diverted funding further
At Hanford, the cost savings from placing facilities in min safe condition (more than $9 million in FY13) were redirected to non-remediation
activities.
10
Shifts in funding prioritiesPost ARRA
• Hanford received level funding overall (~$100M less than pre-ARRA levels)
• CHPRC received $550 million less than pre-ARRA levels – a >50% decrease in funding
• Halted all CHPRC waste retrieval, D&D, and waste management activities
• Drove WRAP, T Plant, CSB and others to min safe
11
Affect on Commercial Processors
• Some closed unprofitable processes
• Unfortunately, fixed costs remained the same
Shareholders could not understand why, with millions
of cubic feet of waste stockpiled at DOE sites, commercial processing
facilities sit idle.
• Loss of revenues, capabilities, and expertise
• Sharp decrease in stock prices• Layoff’s• Some closed their doors
12
• D&D could last years• D&D funding comes from funds
set aside by the commercial entity as required by law
• In many NRC agreement states shortfalls in D&D funds are the responsibility of the State licensing entity
Affect on Commercial Processors (concluded)
There is no straddling the fence – the facility is
either a processing facility or a facility in
some state of decommissioning.
• Once declared, D&D may not be revocable or licenses and permits renewable
13
Retaining Commercial Capability is Good Business
• Delivers cost avoidances on numerous fronts– Supports DOE cleanup objectives
– Reduces the risk and cost of storing and maintaining packaged wastes and storage facilities
– Avoids cost of missed milestones and needless litigation
• Funds from the federal level are decreasing
• There are very few areas in which additional efficiencies can be realized
• Risk of loss of commercial capacity creates a spiraling cost increase for DOE to obtain funds to create capabilities
• Risks continue to climb as waste is stored for longer periods
14
Protect the Investment
• It’s our obligation to protect this national resource on which we spent tax payer money
• Establish a “minimum safe” funding supply to assure continued viability of commercial supply chain
What would it take?
An annual investment of ~$50 M
< 1% of DOE EM’s annual allotment of $5.6B
would maintain the commercial supply chain
• Managed by the Office of Waste Management Operations
15
Questions?