The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

1
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

• Phillip J. Finck
• Idaho National Laboratory
• April 2, 2007

2
Spent Nuclear Fuel Management Options
3
Objectives of Advanced Fuel Cycles
Objectives Technology Potential Improvements Within current repository design boundaries
Management of Usable Isotopes Denaturing through incremental improvements to the once through cycle Consumption in Closed Cycles with FRs Transmute up to 50 fissile Transmute up to 99 fissile
Repository Utilization Improved once through cycles Closed Cycles with FRs Store up to 2 times more energy-equivalent-waste Store orders of magnitude more energy-equivalent waste
Resource extension Improved once through cycles Closed Cycles with FRs Extract 30 more energy Extract orders of magnitude more energy
4
Yucca Mountain Reference Case
5
Repository Benefits for Limited Recycle in LWRs

• Limited LWR recycling of plutonium and americium
  would allow a drift loading increase of about a
  factor of 2
• Subsequent burning in fast reactor needed to
  derive large benefits

6
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Objectives
are Stated in The National Security Strategy

• 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.
• 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.
• 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) 29.

7
Key Elements of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Strategy
Include Domestic Efforts

• Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy
  demand in an environmentally sustainable manner.
• Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced
  technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel
  that do not separate plutonium, with the goal
  over time of ceasing separation of plutonium and
  eventually eliminating excess stocks of civilian
  plutonium and drawing down existing stocks of
  civilian spent fuel. Such advanced fuel cycle
  technologies will substantially reduce nuclear
  waste, simplify its disposition, and help to
  ensure the need for only one geologic repository
  in the United States through the end of this
  century.
• Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced
  reactors that consume transuranic elements from
  recycled spent fuel.

8
Supporting the GNEP Strategy Requires New
Facilities, Technology Development and RD
Geologic Disposal
Spent Fuel(63,000 MTHM)
Addl.RecyclingReactors
Existing LWR Fleet
AdvancedRecyclingReactor
ProcessStorage
AdvancedSeparation
FR Fuel
ExpandedLWR Fleet
Industry led,Lab Supported
2020-2025
Support for Industry-led effortand RD for GNEP
beyond 2020-2025
Advanced FuelCycle Facility
Technology Development and RD
DOE Lab led, NRC, Universities,
Industry,International Partners
9
For the Initial GNEP Operation We Envision Three
Supporting Facilities
Nuclear fuel recycling center (CFTC)
Advanced recycling reactor (ABR)
Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility
10
Key Elements of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Strategy
Include International Efforts to

• Establish supply arrangements among nations to
  provide reliable fuel services worldwide for
  generating nuclear energy, by providing nuclear
  fuel and taking back spent fuel for recycling,
  without spreading enrichment and reprocessing
  technologies.
• Develop, demonstrate, and deploy advanced,
  proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors
  appropriate for the power grids of developing
  countries and regions.
• Develop, in cooperation with the IAEA, enhanced
  nuclear safeguards to effectively and efficiently
  monitor nuclear materials and facilities, to
  ensure commercial nuclear energy systems are used
  only for peaceful purposes.

11
International Expansion of Nuclear Power is
Underway
http//www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518
,460011,00.html
12
An International Fuel Service is an Essential
Part of Reducing Proliferation Risk

• Fuel Suppliers operate reactors and fuel cycle
  facilities, including fast reactors to transmute
  the actinides from spent fuel into less toxic
  materials
• Fuel Users operate reactors, lease and return
  fuel.
• IAEA provide safeguards and fuel assurances,
  backed up with a reserve of nuclear fuel for
  states that do not pursue enrichment and
  reprocessing

13
International Partnerships are Critical to GNEP
Success

• Develop the basis for an assured fuel supply
  concept with other nations
• IAEA or similar international organization
  administered mechanism to provide supply
  reliability in cases that could not be resolved
  in the commercial market, facilitation of new
  commercial arrangements when supply interrupted
  for some reason other that safeguards compliance
• Eligibility based on
• safeguard compliance, nuclear safety standards,
  and reliance on international market without
  indigenous enrichment and reprocessing
• Foster specific RD and technology collaborations
  through interactions with National Laboratories
  to address critical areas U.S. Russia
  agreement
• Complete international agreement on GNEP
  Statement of Principles
• Hold GNEP meeting for other interested nations
  thereafter.

14
GNEP Critical Technology Issues
15
GNEP Why and Why NOW

• There is a rapidly expanding global demand for
  nuclear power
• Without some global regime to manage this
  expansion many more Iranian situations will
  likely appear
• A global regime is forming up with Russia,
  France, Japan and China having both the will and
  the means to participate.
• The United States, through GNEP, is leading the
  formation of this global regime but we do not
  have the means to participate in its execution.
• Unless the United States implements the domestic
  aspects of the GNEP program we will suffer
  significant consequences in our energy security,
  industrial competitiveness and national security.
• There are potential repository benefits, but the
  international need for GNEP is compelling.
• The United States must act decisively and quickly
  to implement GNEP or face the real possibility of
  having no influence over the certain future
  global expansion of nuclear energy.

16
ABR, ALWR, and LWR Capacity for 2.4 Nuclear
Power Growth Rate
17
Comparison of SNF Storage and Disposal for
Once-Through and Recycling scenario
18
NEA/OECD Working Party on Scientific Issues of
the Fuel Cycle includes studies of User/Supplier
scenarios
19
Near-term Focus is Input to the Secretarial
Decision Package for June 2008

• Deployment options. Comparison with partner
  states
• Economic and business payoffs
• Effect of uncertainties in technology development
• Input to business plan
• Role of nuclear (with GNEP) in global energy
  picture
• Integrated waste management strategy
• Provide input to NEPA and PEIS activities

20
Development of Advanced Spent Fuel Processing
Technologies for GNEP
21
ABR Technology Development

• Addresses Technology Development for ABR
  Prototype
• Performs feasibility studies for select ABR
  Prototype components
• Steam generator testing, accelerated aging of
  critical materials and components, passive
  fission gas monitoring , etc.
• Performs key features testing of ABR Prototype
  critical component
• pump performance testing, fuel handling machine
  testing, reactor shutdown system testing, seismic
  isolation bearing testing, water flow simulation
  stability testing, etc.
• Performs testing of key ABR Prototype plant
  components to verify performance characteristics
  and safety responses in a prototypical
  environment
• Primary pump testing, control rod drive mechanism
  testing, fuel handling system operations,
  testing, and recovery, qualification of
  structural materials, performance of reliability
  testing of shutdown systems, etc.
• Ends with ABR Prototype safety tests
• Addresses economic issues of fast reactors
• Develops and tests advanced fast reactor features
  that can contribute to improved economic
  performance
• Requires an infrastructure to support technology
  testing and development

22
Fast Reactor Support Facilities Infrastructure

• U.S. lacks the infrastructure to test large
  sodium components in a prototypic environment
• ETECs Liquid Metal Engineering Center has been
  decommissioned
• General Electric no longer has sodium testing
  facilities
• ANL has some some active/some inactive but
  not for very large components
• France and Japan reportedly have some testing
  capability but condition is unknown.
• ABR Program must support rebuilding of U.S.-based
  sodium component testing infrastructure to
  support ABR component development to
• Provide for prototypic testing environment for
  sodium components
• Provide for personnel training on sodium
  handling, sodium component operations, and
  maintenance

23
Fast Reactor Support Facilities Infrastructure
(Contd)

• Development of ABR Prototype and successor ABRs
  may require additional support facilities
  (examples)
• Water loop testing facilities for component
  testing
• Targeted research and development facilities for
  lab-scale testing
• Materials Testing Capability
• Driver Core Fuel Manufacturing Facility

24
Technical Risk Evaluation
Feasibility Issues 1. U.S. infrastructure is insufficient for manufacturing and testing
2. Need to re-establish the regulatory structure
3. No fabrication capability for driver fuel

Performance Issues 1. New technologies will improve costs and reliability of the ABR - compact components - advanced energy conversion systems - seismic isolation - fuel handling machines - in service inspection technologies - primary design
25
The initial post irradiation examination (PIE) of
metal and nitride fuels irradiated in ATR is
completed.

• Essential post-irradiation examinations of the
  AFC-1 fuels are completed.
• ATR irradiation of AFC-1D (metal), AFC-1G
  (nitride) and AFC-1H (metal) transmutation fuel
  samples continued.
• Comprehensive review of the U.S. fast reactor
  fuel experience compiled into a white paper.

26
Metal and oxide TRU fuels are candidates for the
first generation transmutation fuel.
Candidates for First Generation Transmutation ( lt
20 years)

• Oxide Fuels (powder processing)
• Successful small-scale fabrication and
  irradiation on limited amount of samples (France,
  Japan)
• Effect of group TRU on fabrication process
  unknown
• Effect of lanthanides on fabrication
• Large-scale fabrication amenable to hot-cell
  operations must be developed
• Limitations on linear power

• Metal Fuel
• Successful small-scale fabrication and
  irradiation on limited amount of samples
• Large-scale fabrication without loss of Am must
  be demonstrated
• Fuel-clad interactions at high burnup must be
  investigated
• Effect of lanthanides on FCCI must be addressed

Back-up Options for Initial Candidates

• Am recovery and use in moderated targets
• Fabrication using powder metallurgy
• Development of advanced clad materials (liners)
• Driver fuel and MA targets

• Sphere-pac or vibro-pac fuel technology
• Risk trade-off fabrication versus performance
• Driver fuel and MA targets

Long-Term Options (2nd or 3rd Generation) for
Increased Efficiency ( gt 20 years)

• Nitride
• High TRU loading potential
• Fabrication process requires further work
• N-15 enrichment.
• Dispersion
• High burnup potential
• Fabrication process requires further work
• Separations process must be developed

27
To achieve fuel qualification tests using LTAs,
considerable developmental testing is required.
PHASE III Demonstrate fabrication process
Validate fuel performance specifications
Validate predictive fuel performance codes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
PHASE II Optimize the fuel design Fuel
Specification and Fuel
Safety Case Fuel properties measurements with
variance Predictive fuel behavior models and
codes
Phase IV Qualification
LTA Tests
DBA Transients Tests
Transient Response Tests
Phase III Design Improvements Evaluation
Undercooling Tests (2? Clad T)
High-Power Tests (2? LHGR or Fuel T)
Fabrication Variables Tests
Design Parameters Tests
Scoping Transient Tests
Phase II Concept Definition Feasibility
Scoping Tests II (prototypic)
PIE
Scoping Tests I (screening)
Fuel Candidate Selection
0
2
8
12
4
6
10
14
16
18
20
Time (years)
28
Transmutation fuel development is considerably
more challenging than conventional fuels.

• Multiple elements in the fuel
• U, Pu, Np, Am, Cm
• Varying thermodynamic properties
• e.g. High vapor pressure of Am
• Impurities from separation process
• e.g. High lanthanide carryover
• High burnup requirements
• High helium production during irradiation
• Remote fabrication quality control
• Fuel must be qualified for a variable range of
  composition
• Age and burnup of LWR SNF
• Changes through multiple passes in FR
• Variable conversion ratio for FR

Legacy SNF From LWRs
LWRs
Reprocessing
TRU
Fuel Fabrication
TRU
Fast Burner Reactors
Reprocessing
29
Fuel performance prediction requires integral
understanding of multiple phenomena.
Dynamic properties Changes with irradiation,
temperature, and time.

• Microstructure
• Initial distribution of species
• Initial stoichiometry
• Thermal conductivity
• Thermal expansion
• Specific heat
• Phase diagrams
• Fission gas formation, behavior and release
• Materials dimensional stability
• Restructuring, densification, growth, creep
  and swelling
• Defect formation migrations
• Diffusion of species
• Radial power distribution
• Fuel-clad gap conductance
• Fuel-clad chemical interactions
• Mechanical properties

Nonlinear effects Initial condition dependence
(fabrication route).
30
A parallel analytic and experimental development
assures implementation shortly after the first
LTAs.