Dr. James Turner DOE Assistant Deputy Administrator American Nuclear Society Presentation

1. Dr. James Turner DOE Assistant Deputy Administrator American Nuclear Society Presentation November 13, 2000

2. Overview • Program mission/goals/history • Key program areas • Program status • Chornobyl closure • Core conversion project • Future trends

3. Mission • Implement U.S. nonproliferation and national security objectives by improving the safety of nuclear facilities, reducing weapons-usable nuclear material availability, and enhancing international nuclear cooperation. • Goals • Reducing risks and improving safety at 65 Soviet-designed reactors in nine countries • Building host country infrastructure • Supporting Chornobyl safety and closure • Qualifying an independent nuclear fuel supplier for Ukraine • Converting Russian production reactors to produce heat but not plutonium

4. Program Participants U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Department of State U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Department of Energy Office of International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation Policy & Guidance • Armenia • Bulgaria • Czech Republic • Hungary • Kazakhstan • Lithuania • Russia • Slovakia • Ukraine Participating Countries Program Implementation Lead Technical and Administrative Support Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Host-Country Organizations and Nuclear Power Plants U.S. Industrial Organizations DOE National Laboratories

5. Program History • 1988 - The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. sign a Memorandum of Cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear reactor safety • 1990 - DOE initiates a modest program to improve operational safety at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant in Russia • May 1992 - U.S. announces the “Lisbon” safety initiative to • Enhance the operational safety of Soviet-designed reactors • Reduce risks at the least-safe designs (RBMKs and VVER 440/230s) • Enhance the capability of regulatory organizations • July 1992 - U.S. goals are endorsed at the G-7 summit in Munich • September 1992 - Initial funding of $21.9M for DOE is provided under a U.S. AID/DOE interagency agreement • 1993 - At the Vancouver Summit, President Clinton pledges $100M to Russia for nuclear safety improvements • Since 1992, the program has expanded to encompass a broad range of nuclear safety areas including training, safety equipment, safety evaluation, and fire protection in nine countries

6. Soviet-Designed Reactor Safety (SDRS) • The U.S. Department of Energy manages a comprehensive program, in cooperation with partners in other countries, to reduce risks at all Soviet-designed nuclear power plants. • Countries participating in the program are Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine (the host countries).

7. Percent of Electricity from Nuclear Power (1999) 73 80 60 47 47 44 38 36 40 21 20 14 0.15 0 Armenia Russia Czech Republic Hungary Bulgaria Slovakia Ukraine Lithuania Kazakhstan SDRS Program Rationale Problems: • Inadequate operating procedures and training • Design deficiencies • Lack of infrastructure to sustain safe operation • Nuclear regulatory authority not centralized • Host-country need for electricity from the plants is great

8. Making Operations Safer • Training Centers • Established: Balakovo and Khmelnytskyy • Training methodology being transferred to plants in Russia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Armenia • Analytical Simulators • Chornobyl, Balakovo, Novovoronezh, Bilibino • Full-Scope Simulators • Khmelnytskyy, Rivne, South Ukraine, Zaporizhzhya, Kola, Kalinin • Emergency Operating Instructions • Rivne, Zaporizhzhya, Chornobyl, Novovoronezh, Kola, Balakovo, Leningrad,Ignalina, Kozloduy • Safety Maintenance Technologies • Chornobyl, Kursk, Leningrad, Smolensk, Ignalina, Bilibino, Armenia • Ultrasonic Inspection Equipment • Chornobyl, Khmelnytskyy, Zaporizhzhya, South Ukraine, Rivne, Balakovo, Beloyarsk, Bilibino, Kalinin, Kola, Kursk, Novovoronezh, Smolensk, Leningrad

9. Making Plants Safer • Safety Parameter Display Systems • Chornobyl, Khmelnytskyy, Zaporizhzhya, South Ukraine, Rivne, Kursk, Novovoronezh • Fire Protection Equipment • Chornobyl, Zaporizhzhya, Smolensk, Leningrad, Kozloduy, Armenia • Emergency Power Supply Systems • Kola, Kursk, Kozloduy • Emergency Water Supply Systems • Kursk, Novovoronezh, Armenia

10. Building Infrastructure to Sustain Safety Improvements • Safety Analyses • Probabilistic Risk Assessments • Plant specific assessments • Validating analysis codes • Fire Hazards Analyses • Regulatory Support

11. International Safety Centers • Objectives: • Open exchange of nuclear information • Developing enhanced nuclear safety technology • Maintain in-country expertise in the nuclear sciences • Coordinating work on safety of nuclear facilities ICC International Chornobyl Center INSC International Nuclear Safety Center IRL International Radioecology Laboratory SLIRT Slavutych Laboratory of International Research and Technology KINSC Kazakhstan International Nuclear Safety Center RINSC Russian International Nuclear Safety Center

12. SDRS Program Status • Roughly halfway through overall safety improvement effort • Significant work lies ahead • Some work beginning to flow from safety assessments • Example, Ignalina Control and Protection System • Host country economic problems make it difficult for the plants to purchase safety equipment and technology • Example, fire doors in Ukraine • Local company set up to manufacture doors, but plants lack funds to purchase doors • Result: U.S. must provide both financial and technical assistance

13. SDRS Significant Benefit Continues • Reducing the likelihood of a nuclear accident that could destabilize new democratic governments, require a massive influx of international aid, and threaten the viability of nuclear power worldwide • Promoting a stable business climate for international investments in countries with Soviet-designed reactors • Providing protection for the public, the economy, and the environmental health of host countries, European neighbors, and the world. • A safety culture which will endure after the assistance has ended is being embedded

14. Chornobyl Closure • On June 5, 2000, Ukrainian President Leonid D. Kuchma announced the closure of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant by December 15, 2000. • Closure of the last operating unit, Unit 3, at Chornobyl represents a major milestone for Ukraine, the United States, and the other G-7 nations. • President Clinton authorized an additional $2 million in assistance to Ukraine as further compensation for shutdown of Unit 3. A portion of this aid was allocated to shutdown and deactivation activities, which includes completion of a replacement heat plant.

15. Replacement Heat Plant for Chornobyl • U.S. commitment to G-7 to complete construction of partially built heat plant • One of the nine facilities needed for site heating and decommissioning • 290 MWt, 30-year design life, natural gas fueled with mazute (heavy fuel oil) backup • Chornobyl nuclear power plant has overall project management responsibility • U.S. Team (PNNL, Babcock & Wilcox, Morrison-Knudsen) provides financial/ contract management and technical support • Scheduled completion: Mid-year 2001

16. Other Chornobyl safety initiatives • Supporting an international effort to prevent collapse of the shelter around Chornobyl’s ruined reactor Unit 4, suppress the radioactive dust inside the shelter, and protect shelter workers from radioactive and industrial hazards • Developing technical strategies for shutting down and deactivating the Chornobyl plant • Establishing an international research laboratory center in the city of Slavutych, near the Chornobyl site, and a related center in Kyiv.

17. Chornobyl Shelter • Bilateral projects completed • Transition to multilateral effort • European Bank (EBRD) managing finances • $387 million pledged in 1997; 22 countries participating • Program Management Unit selected in April 1998 • B1/B2 beam upgrade complete • $758 million pledge was committed in Summer 2000 • Consequently, Ukraine has committed to close Chornobyl Unit 3 reactor in late 2000

18. Ukrainian Nuclear Fuel Technology Transfer • Objective: • Assist Ukraine in Achieving Enhanced Fuel Design and Licensing Capability • Background: • Quid pro quo for Ukraine’s agreement to halt the sale of reactor technology to Iran • Major Tasks: • Transfer fuel performance and design codes and data • Design and irradiate six lead test assemblies • Transfer independent review capability to regulator • Design and fabricate one reload batch of fuel (42 assemblies)

19. Ukrainian Nuclear Fuel Technology Transfer • Technology transfer and training • Fuel design, analysis, safety codes; fuel fabrication and testing; quality assurance; licensing; nuclear fuel cycle optimization • Assistance to State Nuclear Regulatory Administration • Lead test assemblies (6) in 2003 • Initial reload batch (42) in 2005 • Flow test • A setback occurred when the test was postponed and equipment returned to the U.S. Efforts under way to resolve this issue.

20. Core Conversion Project • DOE Role • Technical Coordination • PNNL Support • DoD Role • Executive Agent • Funding Provider Nizhny Novgorod

21. Russian Plutonium Production Reactor Sites The reactor near Zheleznogorsk, ADE-2, started up in 1964 and is located inside a granite mountain The Seversk reactors, ADE-4 and ADE-5, started up in 1964 and 1965, respectively, and share a common reactor building

22. Core Conversion Benefits • International security will be enhanced by stopping production of weapons-grade plutonium at the reactors • The amount of spent fuel produced at the reactors will be reduced ten-fold • Spent fuel reprocessing will no longer be needed • The converted reactors will be less expensive to operate • Critically needed heat and electricity will continue to be provided

23. Future Trends • Host country safety cultures and economies become stronger allowing for more domestic resources for nuclear safety • U.S. activities move from assistance toward fully cooperative efforts to address long-term safety issues • Safety issues should come from detailed safety analysis, both deterministic and risk based