The case for treatment Recyling in the US

1
(No Transcript)
2
USED NUCLEAR FUEL-- WHAT WILL WE DO WITH IT?

• Dr. Alan S. Hanson
• Executive Vice President
• Technology and Used Fuel Management
• AREVA NC Inc.
• alan.hanson_at_areva.com
• September 11, 2006

3
Accumulation of Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF)

• Current inventory approx 52,000 MTU
• Used fuel strategies are critical to the Nuclear
  Industry
• Ultimate Disposal of commercial and defense waste
  is a Must
• Recycling is a complementary strategy and should
  be Considered
• Full appropriation and funding reform is Needed

A sustainable long term solution to managing UNF
is needed in the face of a worldwide expansion of
CO2 free nuclear power
4
LEGAL BASIS FOR BACK-END ACTIVITIES

• Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
• Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
• Standard contracts between DOE and utilities
• Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987
• Names Yucca Mountain as single site for first
  repository

5
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR BACK-END ACTIVITIES

• 10 CFR Part 50 reactor pool storage of used fuel
• 10 CFR Part 72 interim used fuel storage
• 10 CFR Part 71 used fuel transportation
• 10 CFR Part 63 used fuel disposal in a repository

6
OPTIONS FOR INTERIM USED FUEL STORAGE

• Rerack wet pool storage to densify
• Expand wet pool storage
• Trans-ship used fuel to other pool
• Add dry storage casks

7
Projections for Dry Storage Use

• 2010 2015
• 20,000 MTU 27,000 MTU
• 45,000 Assemblies 72,000
  Assemblies
• 1,200 Casks 1,600 Casks

By 2015 over 40 of the fuel inventory could be
in Dry Storage
8
Increased Reliance on Dry Storage

• 2006 67 operating reactors have contracted for
  dry storage
• 2012 93 reactors will likely be contracted for
  dry storage
• 2015 2000 MTU/year added to dry storage

Secure and reliable cask supply is critical to
the industry as nearly 90 of US reactors will
rely on dry storage for continued operation
9
Concrete Shielded Used Fuel Storage Systems

• NUHOMS

• Vertical Concrete System

10
The NUHOMS System
11
Cask Capacity Trend

• Economics drove casks to higher capacity
• Balance capacity with shielding and decay heat

32 PWR 68 BWR
24 PWR 52 BWR
Cask Capacity
21 PWR
7 PWR
2005
1985
1995
12
Rising Burn-ups and Heat Loads

• Decay heat and source terms are driving cask
  designs

13
Thermal Capacity Trend

• Higher burnups and shorter cooling times are
  pushing the thermal capacity of storage casks
  beyond 40 kW (NUHOMS)

40.8 kW
Cask Thermal Capacity
27 kW
21 kW
7 kW
1985
1995
2005
14
SAFETY ANALYSIS FOR DRY FUEL STORAGE

• Criticality Control
• Geometry (spacing, fluxtraps)
• Fixed neutron absorbers
• Boron credit or burnup credit
• Shielding
• Offsite dose limitations
• Keep occupational doses ALARA
• Structural
• Normal condition drops
• Accident drops including tipover
• Thermal
• Fuel cladding limits
• Other material limits (AI, Pb, absorbers)
• Containment
• Hydrotest welds
• He leak test final closure
• Materials Issues
• Corrosion

15
Used Fuel Licensing Requirements
INCREASING DESIGN STRINGENCY
16
Used Fuel Transportation

• Licensing under 10 CFR Part 71
• Harmonized with IAEA Regulations, but with a lag
• Transport cask licenses good for five years, but
  are renewable
• Principal design challenge is the hypothetical
  accident sequence
• 9-meter drop onto unyielding surface with
  orientation for maximum damage
• Fully engulfing fire at 800C for 30 minutes
• 1-meter drop onto puncture bar oriented for
  maximum damage
• 15-meter immersion in water

17
Existing Used Fuel Transport Cask Fleet

• IF-300 Rail Casks
• TN-8 and TN-9 Overweight Truck Casks
• NAC-LWT Legal Weight Truck Cask
• TN-FSV Legal Weight Truck Cask (licensed for Ft.
  St. Vrain fuel)

In 2008, certification for all but the NAC-LWT
and TN-FSV will expire in accordance with latest
revisions to 10 CFR Part 71.
18
January 2005 3000th cask unloading at La Hague

• Transporting and unloading used fuel is a routine
  operation performed in Europe

19
Current Used Fuel Issues

• Regulatory disconnects on criticality control (10
  CFR Part 50.68)
• Industry is moving to license storage-only
  systems for transportation retroactively
• Industry desires burnup credit, particularly for
  transportation
• DOE initiative for TAD canisters. Is it
  realistic?
• Imposition of disposal criteria on storage and
  transportation
• Lower capacity, lower heat loads, longer cooling,
  exotic materials
• Security issues
• New regulatory requirements for design basis
  threat
• National Academy of Sciences report concluded
  that used fuel storage is safe
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision requiring
  NRC to consider environmental impacts of
  potential terrorist attacks

20
Waste Disposal

• NWPA of 1982 committed the Department of Energy
  to begin disposing of spent fuel no later than
  February 28, 1998
• By this date, not only was no fuel disposed,
  there was no repository, no license application
  for one, and DOE had not even removed any spent
  fuel from a reactor site.
• Today, more than eight years after the
  contractual date, the previous state of affairs
  remains true. There is not even a schedule for
  the repository.
• Lack of demonstrated fuel removal from commercial
  reactors threatens the future of nuclear power.
• A geologic repository will be required no matter
  what configuration is finally adopted for the
  fuel cycle.

21
The Open Cycle Strategy 30 Years Later

• The open cycle throw away strategy was adopted
  in the US more than a quarter century ago
• Primarily as a measure perceived to support
  nonproliferation objectives
• An adequate strategy for a stagnant nuclear power
  industry of the 1980s and 1990s
• Unintended consequence complicates waste
  disposal

22
Sustaining the Nuclear Renaissance

• We are witnessing the revival of nuclear power
• We therefore need to re-examine our
  waste-disposal strategy
• Do we have an adequate waste-management strategy
  to sustain the renaissance?
• Does the throw away fuel cycle strategy provide
  a strong enough foundation for the rebirth?

23
Open vs. Closed Cycles

• Open Cycle

Used UOX Transport
HLW Repository (High Volume)
Mining Conversion Enrichment Fabrication
UOX
--------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

• Closed Cycle

Conversion Enrichment Fabrication
Mining
UOX
Used Fuel
MOX Fuel
HLW Repository (Low Volume)
HLW transport
Recycled U
Treatment Recycling
24
U.S. Experience with Commercial Reprocessing

• West Valley , NY
• Operated by NFS from 1966 to 1972
• Capacity was 300 MTHM/year
• High cost to meet new regulatory requirements
  made plant uneconomic
• US DOE took over site and it is being
  decommissoned today
• Morris, IL
• Built by GE
• Capacity was 300 MTHM/year
• Tested with U, but found to be technically and
  economically inoperable
• Facility is mothballed except for the storage
  pool which still contains used fuel
• Barnwell, SC
• Built by Allied General Nuclear Services
• Capacity was 1500 MTHM/year
• Plant never operated because of regulatory delays
  followed by President Carters ban on commercial
  reprocessing
• Site has been sold for local development

25
French Experience With Reprocessing

• La Hague Plant commissioned in 1966
• Capacity of plant is 1,700 MTHM/year
• Since initial operation, more than 20,000 MTHM
  have been reprocessed
• Recovered Pu is stored and then shipped to the
  MELOX facility for fabrication into MOX fuel and
  recycling
• Fission product and actinide residues are
  vitrified into a highly stable glass form for
  later disposal in a deep geologic repository.

26

More than 20,500 Metric Tons of Spent Fuel
Treated At La Hague
MT treated
As of 1/1/2005
10 863
EDF (France)
5 091
German utilities
2 944
Japanese utilities
659
Swiss utilities
672
Synatom (Belgium)
293
EPZ (Netherlands)
20,500 metric tons treated is the power
generation equivalent of 420,000,000 metric tons
of oil
27
Bush Administration Annouces Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership (GNEP)

• Expand Domestic Use of Nuclear Power
• Demonstrate More Proliferation-Resistant
• Recycling

• Minimize Nuclear Waste
• Develop Advanced Burner Reactors
• Establish Reliable Fuel Services
• Demonstrate Small-Scale Reactors
• Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards

28
GNEP

• GNEP is a welcome attempt to establish a
  long-term vision for the future of nuclear power
• To be successful, GNEP will require decades of
  research and development as well as major
  government investments
• Is there something which could be done now to put
  us on the road to implementing the vision?

29
The Case for Treating-Recycling

• Why the renewed interest in Treating-Recycling?
• Repository optimization through HLW waste
  reduction
• Energy Security and Resource conservation
• Economics (Cost effectiveness)
• Proliferation-resistance imperative

30
Yucca Mountain Optimization

• The goal is to optimize repository loading
• It requires addressing two constraints
• Physical volume reduction of waste package, and
• Heat load reduction, due to
• Actinides for the long term (mostly americium)
• Fission products for the short term (cesium and
  strontium)

600,000
250,000
120,000


Source Argonne National Laboratory
31
Yucca Mountain Optimization

• Repository loading curves for early treatment of
  UNF cooled for 3 years

32
Yucca Mountain Optimization

• This approach also facilitates Safety /
  Radioprotection Demonstration
• Early treatment minimizes Neptunium build-up in
  final waste
• Pu-241 (14 years half-life) ? Am-241 (433 years
  half-life ) ? Np-237 (2 million years
  half-life)
• Vitrified waste form provides long term
  durability

33
Treatment-Recycling Reduces Toxicity
Relative Toxicity
Once-Through
Treatment-Recycling
YEARS
34
Energy Security and Cost Effectiveness

• Energy Security
• MOX recycling
• REPU (Reprocessed Uranium) recycling
• Up to 30 Uranium savings
• Cost effectiveness
• Evolutionary plant design approach
• Initial design derived from proven technologies
  feedback from commercial experience
• Continuous improvement / upgrade strategy
• Minimizes implementation risk

35
COST OF RECYCLING AND ONCE-THROUGH STRATEGIES
COMPARABLE IN A GREENFIELD APPROACH
Especially Given Uncertainty on Yucca Mountain
Costs and Future Uranium Price
Repository costs
Area of relative competitiveness of recyclingand
once-though strategy (in discounted costs)
(2005 / kgHM)
Recycling more competitive (10 cost difference)
Comparableeconomics
Once through more competitive (10 cost
difference)
Recent trends
/- 10 cost range
(2005 / kgU)
(19)
(39)
(58)
(2005 / lb U3O8)
Uranium price
36
Nonproliferation

• Treatment-Recycling plant characteristics
• U/Pu co-extraction
• No separated plutonium
• Integrated plant
• In line fabrication of recycled fuel
• No accumulation
• Advanced safeguards
• Just-in-time MOX recycle in reactors
• Pu use in MOX
• Destroys about 1/3 of the original Pu
• Significantly degrades isotopic composition of
  remainder

37
Used MOX Fuel A Non-Proliferation Perspective

• About 30 of the initial fissile Pu atoms have
  been destroyed
• Pu isotopic composition of used MOX is not
  amenable for weapons use
• High content of even-numbered Pu isotopes
  (Pu-238, -240, -242)
• High spontaneous neutron emission
• High heat generation rate
• Used MOX fuel is more self-protecting than used
  UOX fuel
• Every atom of Pu fissioned reduces the number of
  atoms of U-235 which would otherwise need to be
  enriched

38
Why Start Early ?

• Stops the accumulation of used UOX fuel in
  interim storage
• Significantly optimizes Yucca Mountain loading
  (x4)
• Brings a much needed high level of certainty to
  the US used fuel management program
• Provides a sustainable foundation for the
  impending nuclear renaissance
• Other countries will not wait nuclear
  renaissance is marching on, worldwide

39
Summary

• Today dry fuel storage is being used on a large
  scale in order to deal with used fuel discharges
  and keep nuclear reactors operating
• This is likely to remain the case for at least
  the foreseeable future 10-15 years
• A geologic repository will be needed for eventual
  disposal of nuclear waste products, and progress
  toward implementation is needed for public
  acceptance of nuclear power
• Treatment and recycling may be a valuable
  approach to the back end of the fuel cycle, but
  they will not make a contribution during the near
  term 10-15 years.