The Evolving National Fuel Cycle – A Historical Perspective

1. The Evolving National Fuel Cycle – A Historical Perspective Savannah River National Laboratory Director’s Colloquium September 13, 2012 Monica C. Regalbuto Senior Chemical Engineer Process Chemistry and Engineering Argonne National Laboratory

2. Presentation Outline • Discovery Era • Weapons Development • National Nuclear Power Development • Atoms for Peace • Power Demonstration Program • Growth Period • The Environmental Movement • The Non-proliferation Movement • Presidential Nuclear Policies • Current Domestic Fuel Cycle • Nuclear Waste Management • Advanced Fuel Cycles

3. Discovery Era • The discovery of fission • 1934 – Enrico Fermi conducted experiments in Rome that showed neutrons could split many kinds of atoms • 1938 – Confirmation of Einstein's Theory (35 years earlier). Uranium neutron bombardment experiments confirmed that the total fission product masses did not equal the uranium’s mass, showing that the lost mass had been converted to energy. • The first self-sustaining chain reaction • 1941 – Fermi and his associates suggested a possible design for a uranium chain reactor. The model consisted of uranium placed in a stack of graphite blocks to make a cube-like frame of fissionable material • 1942 – The world’s first reactor known as Chicago Pile-1 begin construction • On December 2, 1942, CP-1 became self-sustaining and the world entered the nuclear age

4. Weapons Development • Early focus on developing an effective weapon for use in World War II • The work was done under the code name “Manhattan Project” • 1943 - CP-1 was dismantled and reassembled at the Argonne Forest site as CP-2 • Model for the first Hanford production reactor • 1944 - World’s first heavy water moderated reactor, CP-3 was constructed at Argonne • Model for the Savannah River production reactors • 1945 – First atomic bomb test (Trinity Test) conducted Alamogordo, NM • August 6, 1945 – atomic bomb nicknamed Little Boy (uranium bomb) is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan • August 9, 1945 - atomic bomb nicknamed Fat Man (plutonium bomb) is dropped on Nagasaki, Japan Japan surrenders August 15, 1945 ending World War II

5. National Nuclear Power Development

6. Civilian Nuclear Power Development • In the late 40’s and early 50’s nuclear power development programs began in many countries • Striving for energy independence • The new exciting technology at forefront of science • When first introduced in the 50’s and 60’s, developing nuclear energy was certainly not a necessity • Populations were smaller • Per capita energy needs were smaller • Fossil fuels were plentiful and inexpensive • Pollution impact of coal and fossil fuels was not high on the public agenda • Nuclear power development began as an exploration of the possible • Hedge against an energy shortage in the future • Potentially inexpensive, plentiful energy --“too cheap to meter” The introduction of civilian nuclear power came from an attempt to reduce the growing inventory of nuclear weapons, by accelerating the introduction of civilian nuclear power

7. Atoms for Peace Movement – International Nonproliferation Structure • President Eisenhower delivered “Atoms for Peace” speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 8, 1953. • Offered U.S. nuclear knowledge, technology and fuel for civilian purposes, in exchange for an undertaking by recipient nations to halt indigenous weapons development • Proposed creation of International Atomic Energy Agency – created in 1957 • “A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the contributing powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind.” Civilian nuclear power began as an implementation of U.S. foreign policy, not as a need for a new energy source

8. Power Demonstration Reactor Program • The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 created the Atomic Energy Commission to control nuclear energy development and explore peaceful uses of nuclear energy • Congress passed Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which provided, in part, a framework for domestic provisions for nuclear power development • In 1955, Atomic Energy Commission announced the Power Demonstration Reactor Development Program • A diversity of reactor types and projects were supported: PWR, BWR, HTGR, FBR, etc. • The U.S. undertook a very broad program of development aimed at settling the question of which are the best reactor technologies for the future. • Many combinations of fuel, coolant and moderators were tried in four different reactor types • This is evident in the heterogeneity of our current spent fuel inventory • Other nations concentrated efforts on one or two reactor types

9. Selection of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) • Early development of thermal reactors focused on simplicity as the way to early economic viability • Understanding their behavior • Low enrichment fuel development • Design and construction • The nation selected the LWR – a uranium oxide fueled reactor moderated and cooled by ordinary water in two variants • The Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) – the choice of Admiral Rickover for submarine propulsion and of Westinghouse for commercialization • The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) – the choice of GE for commercialization • Both PWR and BWR operate under high pressure to allow the water temperatures of hundreds of degrees Celsius necessary for an efficient steam cycle. Other power reactor types included - Fast Breeder Reactor: EBR-I, the first nuclear electricity, HTGR: Peach Bottom-1 (40 MWe) in 1967, Molten Salt Reactor and Organic Moderated Reactor Experiments

10. The Period of Rapid Development and Construction • Success in development led to a focus on economically competitive plants • Feasibility was established very early (1955 – Arco Idaho becomes the first town powered by a nuclear power plant) • Cheap fossil fuels placed the central focus on the development of economically competitive plants (1959 – Dresden-1 in Illinois was the first successful commercial plant built without government funding) • Late 1960’s – success had been achieved, plants were technically feasible and economic • A boom in orders and construction began • Between the late 60’s and 1974 over 100 nuclear plants were built in the U.S. • There were 5 active reactor vendors (Westinghouse, GE, B&W, C-E, and GA), and major oil companies (Exxon, Gulf, etc.) had entered into the fuel cycle arena

11. Other Related Activities • 1974 – Energy Reorganization Act divides the AEC functions between two agencies • The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) to conduct research and development (became DOE in 1977) • The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to regulate nuclear power • NRC initiated the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Mixed Oxide (GESMO) • ERDA initiated the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) • 1,000 LMFBRs were assumed to be on-line by 2000 • High Flux Test Facility (FFTF), 400 MWt and Clinch River Breeder Reactor (CRBR) project were initiated.

12. The Rise of the Environmental Movement • Beginning in the late 50’s and throughout the 60’s, the organized opposition to nuclear power and the environmental movement emerged in parallel • Postwar horror at the human consequences of the atomic bomb deepened • Awareness of the environmental consequences of industrial development grew • Public distrust of government and the military-industrial complex resulted in the use of litigation to promote political and societal changes • Opponents of nuclear power succeeded in halting its expansion • Legal obligations were imposed on DOE to clean up the legacy contamination left by the AEC at the weapons complex • Organized environmental opposition compounded with nonproliferation related concerns caused lengthy construction delays which resulted in: • Increased construction costs • Higher interest rates to finance nuclear construction

13. The Rise of the Nonproliferation Movement • The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) - signed 1968, came into force 1970 • An international treaty (currently with 189 member states) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons • The treaty has three main pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology • To some …. • The very existence of nuclear power represents an unacceptable threat due to the presence of fissile material • The IAEA regime is insufficient Initially targeted separation of plutonium with a main focus on spent fuel reprocessing and breeder reactor technologies

14. Domestic Fuel Cycle Envisioned in the early 70’s Uranium resources were thought to be limited and reprocessing and recycling in high conversion fast reactors was envisioned Commercial Under Development

15. President Carter’s Nuclear Policy • Focus on denying fissile materials to non-nuclear weapons countries and lead by example • Defer indefinitely U.S. commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium • Restructure the U.S. breeder program to give greater priority to alternatives, and defer the introduction of a commercial breeder • Redirect the U.S. nuclear R&D program to accelerate research into alternate fuel cycles that do not involve direct access to materials useful for weapons production • Initiated the “International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation” (INFCE) as a forum to induce other nations to limit or eliminate plutonium use in their civilian nuclear power programs The U.S. cancelled construction of its own civilian reprocessing plant at Barnwell in South Carolina – eliminating reprocessing of spent fuel - which in turn had an impact on the long-term management and disposal of spent fuel It also led to the later cancelation of the oxide-fueled Clinch River Breeder Reactor

16. Domestic Results of President Carter’s Nuclear Policy • The INFCE report concluded that two points in the fuel cycle were sensitive • Uranium enrichment facilities • Plutonium separation facilities • Domestically, the U.S. phased out commercial reprocessing, but did not succeed in influencing other nations as Britain, France, Japan, and later India, Pakistan and others continue perusing commercial recycling • The new policy to dispose spent fuel without processing resulted in an early need for a repository, as reactor pools were not designed for a once-through cycle, and were filling up • Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982

17. The Effect of the TMI-2 and Chernobyl Accidents • Three Mile Island – 1979, partial core meltdown with no radiation release • New regulatory and retrofit requirements caused delays in the licensing process and the escalation of construction costs • Most plants not in construction were canceled, some under construction were mothballed, and no new orders were placed for a number of years • Chernobyl – 1986, complete core meltdown with radiation release • Provoked public concern about the safety of DOE nuclear facilities • Congressional legislation imposed waste remediation obligations on federal agencies Cemented public opposition to further expansion of nuclear power for years

18. Other Key Presidential Initiatives on Nuclear Energy • President Clinton in 1994 - No advanced nuclear R&D • Terminated the Integral Fast Reactor program, the primary advanced power reactor concept then under development • President Bush in 2006 - Global Nuclear Energy Partnership • Expand domestic use of nuclear power • Demonstrate proliferation-resistant reprocessing technology • Develop advanced recycling reactors

19. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) was a Strategy to Support Nuclear Power Expansion Worldwide • Establish reliable fuel services • Employ grid-appropriate exportable reactors • Enhance nuclear safeguards • Develop and deploy recycle technology • Develop and deploy advanced recycle reactors • Minimize nuclear waste GNEP GNEP Plutonium is produced in all reactors and can be managed by Direct disposal in a geological repository Storage for future use As a working inventory in a nuclear fuel cycle

20. GNEP – Rebirth of Closed-Cycle R&D for Improved Waste Management Light Water Reactor Actinide Recycle Reactor 14

21. Current Domestic Fuel Cycle

22. Current Domestic Nuclear Fuel and Fuel Cycle Status (Open) • Trends for nuclear fuel • Longer operating cycles and greater loading flexibility • Higher fuel burnup at discharge (60,000+ MWd/MtU) • Enhanced thermal and mechanical margins • More uniform fuel discharged • Spent fuel is currently stored at the reactor sites as we are missing two facilities for our current open fuel cycle (storage and disposal) • Repository design and licensing case assume direct disposal of spent fuel assemblies – no reprocessing • Advanced fuel cycles involving recycle of actinides is the main avenue for improving waste management and maximizing utilization of repository space

23. Number One Challenge in Current Open Fuel Cycle is Waste Management HLW disposal facilities encompassed both commercial and defense waste National Security Support continued operations of the Navy’s principal combat vessels Nuclear Non-Proliferation Ensure security of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste Energy and Economic Security Maintain nuclear energy option that supplies 20% of our electricity needs to sustain present and future economic security Homeland Security Accept nuclear materials now stored at sites within 75 miles of 162 million Americans Environmental Protection Ensure environmentally sound disposition of our government defense and commercial wastes Support Nuclear Navy Mission Support CommercialNuclear Energy Option Support Surplus Weapons Material Disposition Support Defense Complex Clean-Up

24. Nuclear Waste Management

25. Current Locations of Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF) and High-level Radioactive Waste (HLW) • After Fukushima – new awareness as a country of the need for a waste management strategy • Interim storage • Disposal options • Fuel cycle alternatives 121 sites in 39 states

26. U.S. Nuclear Waste Policy since 1950 • 2008: DOE submits License Application to NRC • 2010: U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced formation of Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to make recommendations for safe, long-term solution to managing used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste

27. Used Fuel Disposition – Status of Yucca Mountain • DOE was pursuing the disposal of UNF in a deep geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended • In June 2008 DOE submitted the construction license application to the NRC • In 2009 DOE announced intention to no longer pursue disposal at Yucca Mountain • In March of 2010 DOE filed a motion with the NRC to withdraw the license application • A number of law suits followed claiming DOE violated the NWPA • Fee Adequacy • Waste Confidence • License Review • Others • NRC Chairman halted further work due to zero-out in Fiscal Year 2010 budget • Litigation process continues • Congressional support varies 27

28. Used Fuel Disposition – Current Status • DOE established the Blue Ribbon Commission for America’s Nuclear Future • The committee conducted a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities • Ultimately the Nuclear Waste Policy Act will have to be modified to implement a new used fuel management strategy • Technical feasibility does not appear to be in question • The process appears to be the challenge • Current strategy stores UNF at reactor sites pending future decisions • This is not without challenges • Future decisions are pending on • Budgets • Amendments to the NWPA 28

29. Used Fuel Storage – Current Status • Utilities began to utilize dry storage in the 1980s when fuel pools began to fill and no disposition path was available • View as a temporary solution until a permanent disposal facility was made available • Currently there is a need to store UNF for the foreseeable future UNF Storage Near Term Challenges • NRC extended storage license – licenses are issued for 20 years, with possible renewals for up to 60 years • Technical bases need to be developed to justify licensing • Key areas are retrievabilityand transportation of UNF after long-term storage • Transportation of high burn-up fuel • Limited U.S. experience with storage and transportation of high burnup fuel (>45 GWD/MTU) • “Orphaned” fuel 29

30. Used Fuel Storage The amount of used nuclear fuel in storage will continue to grow until a disposition solution is found Nuclear Energy Institute: www.nei.org/filefolder/Used_Nuclear_Fuel_in_Storage_Map.jpg 30

31. Used Fuel Storage The number of sites having and the amount of fuel stored in dry storage will continue to grow until a disposition solution is found Nuclear Regulatory Commission www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/locations.html 31

32. Geologic Disposal Research and Development • There is an international consensus that deep geologic disposal is a robust and necessary solution for permanent isolation of high-level radioactive waste • WIPP was successfully developed and is in operation (salt media) • Internationally, mature safety assessments indicate that clay and granite sites are also suitable • We have an opportunity to rethink disposal concepts and strategies • Nearly all options are back on the table • Goals of disposal R&D at this stage: • Provide a sound technical basis for the assertion that the U.S. has multiple viable disposal options that will be available when national policy is ready • Identify and research the generic sources of uncertainty that will challenge the viability of disposal concepts • Increase confidence in the robustness of generic disposal concepts to reduce the impact of unavoidable site-specific complexity • Develop the science and engineering tools required to address the goals above, through collaborations within NE and DOE, and with industry and international programs 32

33. Other National Nuclear Waste Management Programs 33

34. Advanced Fuel Cycles

35. Advanced Fuel Cycles Offer an Aid to Spent Fuel Management • Advanced fuel cycles and advanced reactor concepts may offer better solutions to the current once-through fuel cycle • Improved resource utilization • Enhanced reactor safety • Waste management benefits • However, there are social-political and technical issues • There are also research and development needs The long term goal is transmutation of waste

36. Nuclear Transmutation of Waste • Nuclear Systems are being considered for nuclear waste management • Transmutation of UNF materials to reduce hazardous nuclides and recover energy value • Variation of the Gen IV systems and other designs • Fast reactors with multi-recycle • A more complete fuel cycle than currently used would be required • Reprocessing facilities to separate actinides from fission products • Advanced transmutation fuel fabrications • Ultimately reduce/eliminate enrichment needs • Complete fuel cycle also allows the opportunity for more effective resource utilization • Need to consider deployment, transition, cost and economics, proliferation, and safety issues • Fissile isotopes are likely to fission in both thermal/fast spectrum • fission fraction is higher in fast spectrum • Significant (up to 50%) fission of fertile isotopes in fast spectrum

37. Fuel Cycles Being Considered in System Studies

38. Conclusion • Nuclear energy will continue to play an important role in any future national energy portfolio • History shows that the U.S. "reference" fuel cycle has evolved and is still changing • The need for interim fuel storage resulted from limited UNF pool storage capacity at reactors • The lack of UNF processing, followed by delays in siting a geologic repository, resulted in on-site dry storage being the preferred spent fuel management approach • History has demonstrated the need for investment in technology options that can support evolving economic, political and societal needs and emphasizes the need to keep options open • Advanced fuel cycles and reactor concepts present alternatives to spent fuel management • Where we need to be: • Near term: (1) improve management of UFD (2) complete our open fuel cycle • Long term: focus on sustainable fuel cycles

39. QUESTIONS ?

40. 29 Planned Expansion of Nuclear Power http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460011,00.html

41. Generation I Early Prototype Reactors • Shippingport • Dresden • Fermi I • Magnox Generations of Nuclear Reactors Generation IV Generation III+ Generation III Generation II Future Generation Designs Evolutionary Designs Advanced LWRs Commercial Power Reactors Technology Goals • Safe • Sustainable • Economical • Proliferation Resistant • Physically secure • ESBWR • AP1000 • ACR • ABWR • EPR • System 80+ • PWR, BWR • CANDU • VVER, RBMK • AGR Gen I Gen II Gen III Gen III+ Gen IV 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030