US wrestles with policy questions on GNEP

As DOE presses ahead with its efforts on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the program faces several significant unresolved policy issues, statements by US officials suggest.

One of the issues apparently in play is whether the program will have an interim stage involving the used of mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel as it proceeds to the planned use of fast reactors. Also at issue is the relative proliferation resistance of different reprocessing technologies DOE is exploring, which could have implications for US policy on exporting the technologies.

The efforts to develop new types of reprocessing and fast-reactor technologies are at the heart of the multi-pronged GNEP effort, which DOE formally launched in February. The policy questions appear to be tied, at least partly, to the technical and schedule uncertainties in the long-term research and development being conducted under GNEP.

When the program was unveiled in February, DOE cast GNEP as a long-term R&D effort, with the work centered at the department's national laboratories. But six months later, the department said it was considering a reorientation of the program to speed up the timetable by increasing industry involvement and focusing on technologies that are currently available or are expected to be in the near future. At that time, DOE issued a request for "expressions of interest," or EOIs, for the proposed new approach.

At an August meeting to explain the proposed revision to industry officials and others, the department's Timothy Frazier said DOE was not considering thermal recycling "at this point." In a September 7 e-mail to Platts, Paul Lisowski, DOE's deputy director of advanced nuclear energy systems, said, "Thermal recycle of MOX in LWRs would not yield the long-term benefits for the geological repository as would the fast reactor recycle envisioned under GNEP." But he added, "DOE issued the request for expressions of interest to solicit a broad range of ideas and opinions from industry on all aspects" of the program.

In a September 27 presentation at the Platts Nuclear Fuel Strategies Conference in Washington, the Idaho National Laboratory's Kathryn McCarthy, the deputy associate laboratory director for GNEP, also said thermal reactors are "only suited for limited transmutation." Their role in the US is "strongly reduced" by the "lack of a specific US infrastructure" and by the current policy that "avoids separation of pure plutonium," she said. One of the stated requirements of GNEP is that the reprocessing technology keep plutonium mixed with other elements.

But McCarthy's presentation also included a slide showing three options: a once-through fuel cycle, a "single-tier transmutation system" that goes directly to fast reactors, and a "dual-tier" system that includes an intermediate MOX-in-LWRs step. The goal of GNEP is to go straight to fast reactors, but DOE "can always step back and do that thermal recycle step," she said.

In an interview in October, McCarthy said the MOX option was part of DOE's approach of "looking at what the off-ramps are." DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon has used similar language to describe the department's options.

Under the accelerated timetable DOE proposed in August, a commercial-scale reprocessing plant and fast reactor would both come online around 2020. But some observers -- both supporters and critics -- have argued said that the reprocessing plant will produce far more material than a single fast reactor can absorb.

DOE could decide to delay the deployment of fast reactors, McCarthy said. One option is to utilize thermal reactors for limited recycle, she said. In all recycling scenarios, the storage or disposal of materials would be thoroughly analyzed before being implemented, she said. Alternately, the reprocessing plant could be "sized to support" the projected rate at which those materials would be used in the fast reactors, she said.

The decision on the size of the reprocessing plant probably will be made in the next year or so, she said.

At the September 27 session, Alan Hanson, Areva NC Inc.'s executive vice president for technologies and used fuel management, questioned the prospects for convincing company boards and chief nuclear officers to seek "billions" of dollars from investors to build fast reactors.

In an interview last week, Hanson said that "it doesn't take a lot of analysis" to know that there won't be "a fleet of fast reactors" in 2020. "So what are you going to do with the material?" he asked.

One veteran observer of DOE said last week, "It wouldn't knock me off my chair" to see the department pursue "some ongoing study or analytic work" on the MOX option.

In public presentations this year Hanson has proposed use of MOX in thermal reactors as an interim step. Areva has publicly said it submitted EOIs both for the reprocessing plant and the fast reactor. Hanson said his concerns about the fast reactors "are reflected more in the question of timing than anything else." There are "things you can do by 2020, 2030, 2050," and other things "that may not be possible at all," he said.

"A lot of us don't know how rapidly it's going to be possible to do the development that will make GNEP a complete reality," he said.

This is an excerpt. To see the full length feature, contact support@platts.com.

Created: November 13, 2006

Return to top

The full article can be read in NuclearFuel . Subscribers receiving NuclearFuel by e-mail now receive a monthly spreadsheet giving performance of PWRs and BWRs by fuel cycle. This data gives NuclearFuel subscribers a new tool to track how well nuclear units are performing worldwide. It includes both raw data on the worksheet labeled Data, and a handy viewer for individual unit data.