Panel: Global Partnerships – Spent Fuel Mgmt from the User's Perspective
February 26, 2007

Claes Lindberg, President; SKB International Consultants AB - Sweden
10 reactors in Sweden – 2 shut down.  A few decades ago it was popular to consider shutting down all nuclear reactors, but that decision was reversed in 1987.  Sweden abandoned reprocessing in 1984 for economic and political reasons.

Interim storage of radioactive waste for at least 30 years for cooling.

Future timeline:
2011 - Hope to have construction of encapsulation plant and repository done.
2018 - Begin disposal.
2070 - Site turned to green field.

Utility priorities:
Supply of enriched uranium – diversity of sources, long-term contracts, healthy relationships with suppliers and customers.
Repository – no thought of reprocessing in Sweden at this time.  Can't rule it out in the long-term though.  Finland decided to develop and build a repository system (first in Europe) – a smaller design can be done at reduced costs.

GNEP questions:
Technology possible?
Market of suppliers?
Political interference?
Assurance of final disposal of fuel taken back by supplier? (siting and licensing of additional repositories difficult)
Contractual concerns – liabilities, consequences of contract breach.

How are users convinced to join?  Need credible concept that answers all questions above - logistics and technology.  Also need a credible implementation plan.

Shih-Hai Li, Professor; National Tsing Hua University - Taiwan
Taiwan has only one nuclear power company - Taipower Co.
     3 power stations with 6 units
     2 units under construction
     Pools almost full, looking for dry storage

National Tsing Hua University and the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research are the main research entities.

The Atomic Energy Council is Taiwan's regulator.

High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) mgmt in Taiwan:
Scientific studies since 1980
Host rock selection since 1990 (small island with earthquakes, so difficult)
Education – also with low-level radioactive waste (LLW)
Political problems – elections every year, party changes (current government is anti-nuclear).
Comparison of costs of direct disposal versus reprocessing (reprocessing 80% more expensive).

Future energy supply will need to grow, how will we deal with the waste?

Future solution to waste mgmt:
Work with US, China or international community to find a good host rock location for a repository.
Store long term at site.
Create fast reactors which produce less waste.

Abel J. Gonzalez, Senior Advisory; Nuclear Regulatory Authority - Argentina
Argentina began using nuclear power in the 1950s.
Shut down for a period.  Exported technology around the world.

Last year Argentina decided it needed a nuclear renaissance.
National Report determining this is available on the web.

Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is kept in dry storage.

Argentine policy:
SNF not automatically defined as waste, rather a byproduct that could be an asset.
Disposal – store, wait , and see
Decision of final solution – target 2030
Meanwhile – study all options

GNEP:
Fuel suppliers versus users – how and who decides which nations are which?
Objective – should be international equals committed to the same objective.
IAEA should lead it – but can't do adequately under current structure.

Sylvain Saint-Pierre, Director for Environment and Radiological Protection; World Nuclear Association (WNA) - UK
WNA – trade association for global nuclear industry.  WNA report on GNEP available on its website.

Existing reprocessing/recycling facility capabilities are sufficient.
With future expansion, concepts of new facilities are worthwhile.
Countries already reprocessing should offer their services affordably.

Back end (recycling/disposal) facilities should be located in countries with expertise, industrial development, and safeguards.

Vitrified waste can be stored anywhere that is geologically sound (proliferation-proof).

No international repository will be accepted until there is a national one in operation that has proven safe.

Promoting ideal, but infeasible solutions will postpone decisions (must take into account commercial realities).

Enrique Biurrun, Head, International Cooperation Department; DBE Technology - Germany
Nuclear fuel cycle closure is the key to a renaissance.

In Germany, no further nuclear power use is allowed under newer anti-nuclear government until a repository is established.

19 nuclear power plants provide 25% of Germany's electricity – 50% baseload.

Although the govt. supports reducing carbon output by 20% by 2012, it is actually growing now that nuclear power is limited.

In 1977, a HLW repository site was chosen.
In 2000, the repository efforts were stopped by the new government (close to completion at that point).

Repository siting is difficult in the EU because of current laws; if one country opens a repository it would have to offer its services to all EU countries.

Nuclear opponents play on public fears.  They now target a potential repository since reactors have proven safe.

What are other options to a host state repository?  Share facilities and technology for backend closure.  CATT (Cooperation and Technology transfer on waste mgmt for member states with small programs).

After the first repository in the world finally opens and can show the public that disposal can be safe, problems with acceptance will decrease significantly.

Should consider sending SNF to richer countries to avoid environmental justice concerns.  Should begin with disused medical sources from developing countries.

A repository won't be operational within our lifetimes.

Q&A
Why not narrow a GNEP type of program to regional cooperation for fuel cycle mgmt.?  Would be easier to find agreement.
- Argentina developed this many years ago and it is not incompatible with an international regime.  Need international regime for certain aspects, such as safety and oversight.
- WMA – waste can not be separated from the debate on energy needs and environment.  This debate could change policy on waste.

Politics built on security/proliferation concerns too.
- But need separation of technical from political – separation of peaceful uses from weapons.
- Need stronger int'l body.  IAEA won't be sufficient.

Can waste be buried on remote, uninhabited islands?
- Germany - must be sensitive to perceptions of unethical or biased disposal.

Comment: US already taking medical devices and sealed sources (own and those of US origin in developing countries) at Los Alamos and disposing at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).

Should it be the obligation of supplier nations to take back the waste and close the backend?
- Argentina - It would be difficult for any country to take "waste" back, but not if spent fuel is classified as a "byproduct."

HLW and SNF Policy and Mgmt - Integrated Fuel Cycle
February 27, 2007, 8:30 am

Achieving the Vision of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) - Greater Energy Security in a Safer, Cleaner World
Sal Golub; US Department of Energy
January 2006 – President Bush announced the Advanced Energy Initiative
February 2006 – FY 2007 budget requested $243 million for GNEP

Why do we need GNEP?:
Rising energy demand
Environmental concerns
Proliferation concerns

GNEP supports global nuclear power expansion:
Proliferation resistant technologies for recycling SNF
Advanced reactors that consume transuranic elements from recycled SNF
Reliable international fuel supply
Nuclear safeguards technologies
Exportable reactor technologies

Evolution:
GNEP Technology Demonstration Program
Request for Expressions of Interest from Industry
            Commercial-scale fuel treatment center
            Commercial-scale advanced burner reactor
GNEP Strategic Plan Issued
Two parallel complimentary efforts:
            Industry led effort to design/construct the prototype facilities
            National lab effort to conduct near-term technology development and longer term R&D

Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility to develop technology to fabricate transmutation fuel.  When discovered, fabrication will happen at recycling centers.  Until transmutation fuel discovered, advanced burner reactors will work on regular fuel.

Reduces heat at repository by an order of 1 or 2.  HLW and some naval fuel not recyclable.

International Activities:
Technical collaboration – establish bi/multi-lateral partnerships including fuel supplier, fuel recipient, and prospective recipient countries.  Scope yet to be seen.
Int'l fuel services and assurance – fuel supply, spent fuel take back, and recycling.  Emergency fuel banks/reserves in the event of supply disruptions
Infrastructure Development – support countries seriously considering civilian nuclear power.

IAEA to oversee.

Path forward:
Gain consensus on GNEP Statement of Principles
            Conduct high-level GNEP conferences
                        Fuel Cycle Nations – Spring 2007
                        Existing/Potential Reactor Nations – Summer 2007
Establish bilateral civil nuclear energy action plan
            Russia (done)
            Japan (summer 2007)
Assure supply
Assist infrastructure

GNEP – functional structure to manage GNEP across organizational boundaries.  Under secretaries from various offices to sit on executive committee.

Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI)/GNEP Budgets:
FY2006  78,408
FY2007  243,000 (168 million actual for FY 2007 with CR.)
FY 2008  395,000 (request)

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):
GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)
            Assess reasonable alternatives
            Analyze potential environmental impacts
            Assist DOE decision-making
GNEP Siting Studies
            Stakeholder interest in hosting one or both commercial-scale facilities
            14 grant applications received - both DOE and non-DOE sites proposed.
            11 sites chosen to receive grants for siting studies - likely done by May.

NEPA scoping meetings beginning.  Half done now and will continue for one month or so.

Near term actions:
- Obtain input from US and int'l industries and governments on GNEP facilities.
- Pursue industry participation in development of design studies.
- Develop a detailed GNEP technology roadmap to address outstanding technical issues.
- Complete the GNEP PEIS.
- Engage int'l community on fuel services.
- By June 2008, prepare a decision package for Secretary of Energy (who will decide whether to proceed with the project at that point).

Technology basis exists for GNEP:
Forty-year base of experience with liquid metal fast reactors
Int'l experience in reprocessing (PUREX) and recycling facilities

Technical challenges:
Separation of transuranics
Fabrication of transuranic fuel
Transuranic fuel recycling for reuse

Q&A
What are the 2006 election effects on the budget?
- Bipartisan support for clean energy.  Need to educate new legislators.

Do your working groups involve industry for decision-making?
- Governance internal to DOE

Where will inventory of SNF build – recycling facilities?  More workers exposed to hotter fuel.
- Performing systems analysis at model and full enterprise scales.

What happens to 55,000 metric tons of fuel that are to go to Yucca?
- At this point not planning to send any of legacy waste to recycling facilities.

How will this reactor work?
Some currently are next generation light-water reactors.  This will be sodium cooled – like Generation IV (except a burner, not breeder).

Advanced Fuel Cycles and Impacts on the Yucca Mountain Project
William Nutt; Argonne National Laboratory
Benefits of recycling fuel - volume, heat, and radiation reduction in waste

A decision to dispose of new waste forms at Yucca would require an amendment to the license DOE seeks from the NRC.

UREX+ and pyrochemical processing under consideration
            Laboratory scale demonstrations, not commercial scale.
            Various waste streams, forms, and disposal pathways being considered.

Higher separation efficiency can lead to lower thermal density and greater loading efficiency at Yucca Mountain.

SNF and HLW Treatment Technologies
February 27, 2007

The Use of Passive, Secure Cells for Processing of Highly Active Nuclear Waste
Chris Phillips, EnergySolutions
Sellafield Nuclear Site in the UK has two PUREX-based (plutonium extraction) reprocessing plants.  Also has HLW storage, vitrification plant, and nuclear reactors.

Development of passive, secure cells (PSC) has played a major role in lowering operator dose rates and reducing maintenance downtime.

PSCs – provide mass concrete radiation shielding.  Doesn't require maintenance or personnel entry during the life of the plant.  Sellafield has over 50 years experience with PSCs.

Main Features:
Mass-concrete cell
Normally sealed up
Stainless steel liner
Low point sump with monitoring
Services, instruments placed a barometric head above tanks.

Underlying intention is to design out any need to re-enter the cell once it is placed into hot operation.
Amount of radiation-contaminated waste is minimized (simple system – few or no moving parts - to avoid need for maintenance). 
Type of use – filtration unit.

Alternative to PSCs are Canyons.
PSC – typically provide higher plant availabilities, lower operator dose uptake, and lower contamination spread.
Canyons provide greater plant modification flexibility.

Results of the Lab-Scale Demonstration of the UREX+1a Process Using SNF
Candido Pereira, Argonne National Laboratory
Began in 2005, run in Summer 2006.
Keeps all transuranics together in one byproduct waste form.

Purpose is to reduce volume and toxicity at repository.  Under development as part of GNEP and AFCI.

Components of waste and how they are disposed:
Highest component of SNF is uranium (95%), can dispose as LLW or reuse.
Iodine and Technetium stabilized and put into repository.
3% "other" waste to repository.

Fission products and actinides are separated based on chemical differences.

All processes were run until a steady state was achieved.

UREX recovery product:
Uranium – 99.997
Technetium - 95.5
Plutonium - .0003

Q&A
Cesium – leave out of glassification (vitrification) process and it will decay rapidly.  Can dispose of some waste, which are less hot, independently.
- Can do this as long as glass remains a sound structure.
Process more robust than originally thought.

Will optimize process in future to limit waste streams even further.  Had to prove concept first.  Next step will be to find the best way to do it, not the safest way.

Used Nuclear Fuel Integrated Recycling Plant
Richard Vinoche; AREVA NC - France
Presentation related to GNEP and nuclear renaissance.

Objectives of recycling in US:
Be protective of public health safety and the environment.
Maximize the amount of material recovered from SNF to produce additional energy and minimize the amount of waste that needs disposal.
Make available the energy value of separated materials for future use.
Reduce proliferation risks
Make deployable within 20-25 years
Remain economical

Initial Step – enabling immediate deployment
            Treatment of used UOX (uranium oxide) fuel and fabrication of uranium/plutonium fuel
            Co-extraction (COEX) process
            Deployable in near term (by 2020)

Target – further optimize Yucca
            Adding minor actinides to used fuel where necessary
            Involve the most innovative UREX+1a technologies

Evolutional approach/advanced processes
            Initial step - Uranium and plutonium co-extraction and fabrication (already proven with COEX process).
            Research advanced processes – UREX+1a

No separated plutonium stream
Integration of advanced safeguards
Immediate deployment of proven technologies, securing and accelerating the schedule.
Minimizing capital as well as operational costs

Co-extraction (lessens proliferation risk) and co-conversion (means that a mixed oxide facility won't be needed to re-converge afterward).

Waste mgmt:
Vitrified waste - encased in glass logs.
Compacted waste – contains hulls and end fittings, reduces waste volume by a factor of 4.

Extraction:
Purification of uranium for reuse as fuel
Re-fabrication of uranium and plutonium for reuse as fuel
Vitrification of fission products for disposal at Yucca Mountain

Q&A
What can be built by 2020?
- Deploy a COEX plant for uranium and plutonium oxide fuel for advanced or light water reactors – and uranium, plutonium, and neptunium.

Is the Boston Consulting Group's report on costs accurate?
- Yes.

Comment: It doesn't make sense to redesign and construct a COEX facility that is already commercially operational – wait for construction phase until UREX+1a is developed.

Can let fuel cool as SNF as well as as vitrified product.
- The longer you wait, the more americium that builds up in the fuel.
Cesium and strontium can decay from SNF though.

What are the COEX process benefits (glove boxes versus hot cells)?  Need for fast burner reactors can be delayed with this process.  Why not defer development of fast burner reactors?
- It is true that it is not yet economical for a utility to build an advanced burner reactor.  But must prepare for flexibility in the future.
Budget realities are that Congress may not support the three facilities outlined in the GNEP Strategic Plan.