11

Phillip J. Finck

August 27, 2007

Joint 8th IEEE Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants and the 13th Annual Conference on Human Performance/Root Cause/ Trending/ Operating Experience/ Self Assessment

Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Science & Technology, Idaho National Laboratory

GNEP Technical Integration Office Director

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

August 2007

World energy demand is growing substantially

ν World energy consumption to increase by 57 percent through 2030

ν Total energy demand in non-OECD countries will increase by 95 percent compared to 24% in OECD.

ν Uncertainty of supply and price of natural gas and volatility of oil

ν Challenge of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating global warming

The world is turning increasingly to nuclear energy for sustainable development

August 2007

Nuclear power is expanding internationally to help meet the burgeoning demand

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0.1518.460011.00.html

August 2007

Global Nuclear Energy Partnership launched in February 2006

ν GNEP is part of the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative– GNEP proposed to establish the

foundation for safe and secure expansion of nuclear energy in the U.S. and worldwide

– President’s FY 2007 budget proposes $250M

– FY 2008 budget proposes $405M, including $10M for safeguards technologies

“…my Administration has announced a bold new proposal called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership…we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and newmethods to recycle spent nuclear fuel.”

August 2007

GNEP vision

ν The United States “will build the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to work with other nations to develop and deploy advanced nuclear recycling and reactor technologies

ν This initiative will help provide reliable, emission-free energy with less of the waste burden of older technologies and without making available separated plutonium that could be used by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons

ν These new technologies will make possible a dramatic expansion of safe, clean nuclear energy to help meet the growing global energy demand”

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (March 16, 2006): p. 29

August 2007

GNEP enables safe and secure expansion of nuclear power worldwide

A global partnership and advanced recycling technologies are needed to ensure that nuclear energy expands safely and securely

ν Rising energy demandν Environmental concerns

– Greenhouse gas emissions– HLW/SNF disposal

ν Proliferation concerns– Accumulation of plutonium– Terrorists, rogue states

ν In the longer-term future, uranium resources could be strained

August 2007

GNEP supports global expansion of nuclear power

ν Continue work to encourage new nuclear plants in the U.S.

ν Advanced proliferation resistant technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel

ν Advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled spent fuel

ν Reliable international fuel supply ν Enhanced nuclear safeguard

technologiesν Advanced exportable reactor

technologies

August 2007

Key international elements of GNEP augment and support nonproliferation efforts

GNEP makes diversion and misuse of fissile materials more difficult, more costly, and acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies more difficult to justify as part of a peaceful nuclear program

ν Fuel Suppliers: Operate reactors and fuel cycle facilities, including fast reactors to transmute the actinides from spent fuel into less toxic materials

ν Fuel Users: Operate reactors, lease and return fuel

ν IAEA: Provide safeguards and fuel assurances, backed up with a reserve of nuclear fuel for states that do not pursue enrichment and reprocessing

August 2007

International support for GNEP is strong

ν GNEP has engaged with advanced fuel cycle countries, reactor andcandidate reactor countries since the February 2006 announcement.– (e.g., Russia, China, France, UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada,

Australia, Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Philippines, Ukraine, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Vietnam, Malaysia, Poland, Bahrain, Jordan, and Mexico).

ν US and 5 other supplier nations proposed a reliable fuel supply initiative at the IAEA in September 2006.

ν Co-Sponsored IAEA Workshop on Infrastructure Needs for Developing Countries in December 2006

ν Bi-Lateral Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreements in place with Russia and Japan

ν Japan, France, Russia, and China, with UK and IAEA observers held a Ministerial meeting with the U.S. Secretary of Energy on May 21, 2007 in Washington, DC to state support for GNEP

August 2007

Current fuel cycle approaches

LWR LWR

MA + Reprocessing Losses

Pu + U

Spent Fuel to Repository

LWRU

Interim StorageFor use in FR

FR

Pu

OPENU.S., Finland, …

CLOSEDFrance, Great Britain, Japan, Russia, China …

(To be implemented mid-century in France, Japan, Russia, and elsewhere)

Pu +TRU

U

U

August 2007

Pu +TRU

U

Future options for the ‘back end’ of the fuel cycle

LWR

Pu + U +TRU

FR

Reprocessing Losses

Unat

FR

Reprocessing Losses

U.S. (GNEP)Sustained Recycle

(Breeding)

Pu +TRU

U

U

August 2007

10.1

0.010.001

10.1

0.010.001

225.0

94.0

10.51.0

175.0

91.0

10.31.0

54.044.0

10.01.0

5.75.54.4

1.0

Fraction Pu, Am, & Cmin Waste

Fraction Cs & Srin Waste

Limited by 200 ºC Drift Wall Temp. at Emplacement

Limited by 96 ºCMid-Drift Temp. >1600 yrs Limited by 200 ºC Drift

Wall Temp. at Closure

AssumptionsBurnup: 50 GWd/MT Separation: 25 yearsEmplacement: 25 yearsClosure: 100 years

Potential benefits of closed fuel cycle include improved waste management

ν Spent nuclear fuel is processed to remove the most hazardous radionuclides, i.e., the actinides

– Substantially lowers environmental impact per unit of energy produced

– Enables options for far greater utilization of a repository

– Repository loading is constrained by temperature limits that are reached due to decay heat generation

ν Processing must also remove fission products to limit decay heat

– Plutonium, americium and curium are already removed to reduce dose rate and can be recycled through fast reactors

– Cesium and strontium are removed for separate decay storage before disposal

ν Yucca Mountain is always needed regardless of fuel cycle scenario

Potential Drift Loading Increase Factor for Spent LWR Fuel

GNEP strategy will also enable greater utilization of energy content contained in nuclear fuel.

August 2007

GNEP requires an integrated waste management strategy

ν Aimed at determining and optimizing the waste management benefit of GNEPν To be applied to all GNEP facilities for maximum waste reductionν Systems analysis will determine the appropriate waste form and disposition

pathway, including:– Identify best existing technical approaches and need for further R&D

• UREX+ waste streams have identified waste forms and disposition pathways

– Utilize similar approaches for identical or similar waste streams– Provide input to process and facility designs

ν Transportation issues also addressed – facility siting to minimize transport; advanced remote tracking and monitoring technology development

All waste will have a pathway for permanent disposal and no liquid wastes will be created and stored long-term or disposed

August 2007

Partitioning and transmutation can greatly reduce long-term radiotoxicity

Years

Rel

ativ

e R

adio

toxi

city

Spent Fuel

Spent Fuel with Pu Recycled

Spent Fuel with MA Transmuted

Uranium Ore300 Years

11,000 Years

250,000 Years

Achieved by separationOf Pu

Achieved by Transmutationof minor actinidesin Fast Reactors

August 2007

Integrated WasteStrategyProcess

Scale-UpProcess

Scale-Up

EconomicsEconomicsTransuranicFuel Performance

ProcessLosses

Advanced recycling technology issues

August 2007

UREX+1a baseline fuel recycling technology

August 2007

24 stage 2-cm Centrifugal Contactor in Hot Cell

ν Experiments with 1-kg batches of spent LWR fuel, 2002-2007

ν Processes are designed for either homogeneous or heterogeneous recycle of actinides

ν UREX+1a process involves the group separation of TRU elements

ν Very high separations efficiencies (>99.99%) and product purities (e.g., 99.999+% for U, 99.99% for TRU) have been achieved

Advanced processes have been successfully demonstrated at laboratory scale

August 2007July 2007

Next generation safeguards require a sustained research and technology development effort

ν Advanced measurement techniques – large throughput facilities challenge current international and domestic safeguards goals, necessitating additional measures

ν Safeguards by Design – early integration of safeguards and physical protection as full and equal partners in the design process

ν Process monitoring – inclusion of real-time operational data in a quantitative way to demonstrate enhanced safeguards effectiveness

ν Data integration, protection, and analysis – combining disparate data (instrument, video, tags/seals, etc.) to achieve an integrated view of facility operations, authentication and protection methods

ν Advanced tools – assess safeguards performance, optimize safeguards design, evaluate proliferation risk reduction from facility, site, region, and global perspective

August 2007

R&D success will require integration of experimental, advanced simulation and fundamental science

Sample/Rodlet Irradiation

FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Time (years)

FY’06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Hot-cell rodlet fabrication capability

Pin Irradiation

Selection of 1st generation fuel type & process

Fabrication Process development & DesignAFCF Available

Process OptimizationLTA fabricationLTA(s) available for ABR

Qualified fuel, process and models

Fuel Simulation Platform AvailableDevelopment of Fundamental Models

Phenomenological Tests

Integration of ModelsVerification & Validation

Analysis of LTA & variants

Irradiation of LTA(s)

Fast-Spectrum TestFacility Available

Input to Secretarial Decision

August 2007

Industry participation is critical to success

August 2007

Industry to lead GNEP technology deployment studies

ν Scoping studies completed earlier this yearν Deployment studies to address:

– Business plan– Technology development roadmap– Conceptual design studies– Communications plan

ν 3-6 awards totaling $60M anticipated by September 2007 – Integrated technical and business approaches to receive preferential

consideration– Initial reports to be completed by January 2008

August 2007

Path forward

ν International support for GNEP is strong and moving forward

ν Significant effort over the next year– Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement

– Industry deployment studies to be launched this year

– National laboratories will help respond to key technology challenges

– Conceptual design for advanced fuel cycle research facility in progress

ν Moving to a closed fuel cycle is a natural evolution for the U.S. and is necessary