Energy.gov

The Fuel Cycle (FC) Subcommittee of NEAC met February 7-8, 2012 in Washington (Drs. Hoffmann and Juzaitis were unable to attend). While the meeting was originally scheduled to occur after the submission of the President’s FY 2013 budget, the submission was delayed a week; thus, we could have no discussion on balance in the NE program. The Agenda is attached as Appendix A.

The objective of this document is to provide the Department of Energy (DOE) and the nuclear industry with the basis for a plan to ensure the availability of near-term nuclear energy options that can be in operation in the U.S. by 2010. This document identifies the technological, regulatory, and institutional gaps and issues that need to be addressed for new nuclear plants to be deployed in the U.S. in this timeframe. It also identifies specific designs that could be deployed by 2010, along with the actions and resource requirements that are needed to ensure their availability.

Nuclear power plants in the United States currently produce about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. This nuclear-generated electricity is safe, clean and economical, and does not emit greenhouse gases. Continued and expanded reliance on nuclear energy is one key to meeting future demand for electricity in the U.S. and is called for in the National Energy Policy. Nevertheless, no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. in many years, and none are currently slated for construction.

The Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) project was established under the Energy Policy Act in August 2005 (EPACT-2005). EPACT-2005 defined an overall plan and timetable for NGNP research, design, licensing, construction and operation by the end of FY 2021. At the time that EPACT-2005 was passed, it was envisioned that key aspects of the project included:

The Fuel Cycle subcommittee of NEAC met April 25-26 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The main topics of discussion were the Used Nuclear Fuel (UNF) disposal program, the System Study Program’s methodology that is to be used to set priorities for R&D on advanced fuel cycles, and the University Programs. In addition to these, we were briefed on the budget, but have no comments other than a hope for a good outcome and restrict ourselves to general advice until more is known.

Fiscal year (FY) 2011 marks the ten-year anniversary of the founding of the International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or I-NERI. Designed to foster international partnerships that address key issues affecting the future global use of nuclear energy, I-NERI is perhaps even more relevant today than at its establishment. In the face of increasing energy demands coupled with clean energy imperatives, we must clear the hurdles to expanding the role of nuclear power in our energy portfolio.

In 1999 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) formed a special task force, called the TOPS Task Force, from the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to identify near- and long-term technical opportunities to further increase the proliferation resistance of global civilian nuclear power systems. Recommendations on specific areas of research were called for, as well as on areas where international collaboration could be most productive.

The Fuel Cycle Subcommittee (FCSC) of NEAC met in Washington, August 17- 19, 2010. DOE’s new science-based approach to all matters related to nuclear energy is being implemented. The general approach was outlined to NEAC in the briefing on the NE Roadmap. There are many new directions being considered, and this meeting of the FCSC was to brief the Subcommittee on new directions in nuclear energy that might go beyond our present 4.5% enriched LWRs.

The NEAC Facilities Subcommittee made a site visit to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) on August 26, 2010. Subcommittee members included John Ahearne (Vice Chairman of NEAC and Facilities Subcommittee Chairman), Dana Christensen (ORNL), Thomas B. Cochran (Natural Resources Defense Council), Michael Corradini, (University of Wisconsin-Madison), and Andrew Klein (Oregon State University). Tansel Selekler (Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy) accompanied the Subcommittee. 

The Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, Facility Subcommittee visited the Idaho National Laboratory on 19-20 May 2010 to tour the nuclear infrastructure and to discuss the INL plans for facility modernization as a dimension of the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy’s (NE) mission. This was there mission.

The Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) formed two subcommittees to develop a report for the new Administration: a Policy Subcommittee chartered to evaluate U.S. nuclear energy policy and a Technical Subcommittee to review facilities for nuclear energy programs. The two subcommittee reports follow this brief summary.1

The mission of the Policy Subcommittee was to explore the critical choices and implications in U.S. nuclear energy policy, with a view to framing options for the next President to consider.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program is still evolving. Since our report of March 22, 2006 the DOE has sought to gauge industry interest in participation in the program from its very beginning. At the time the ANTT committee met, August 30- 31, 2006, responses had not yet been received from industry to the DOE’s request for Expressions of Interest. This report is based on the assumption that the program outlined recently, which does not include an Advanced Burner Test Reactor, is what will go forward.

In 2002, the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy completed a technology roadmap project that provided an overall plan to the broad vision of enhancing the future role of nuclear energy systems in the United States and the world at large. This Technology Roadmap focused on the development of advanced nuclear systems, so-called Generation IV systems, which meet profram foals of improved safety and economics, as well as enhanced sustainability and minimization of the risks from proliferation.

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) marks a major change in the direction of the DOE’s nuclear energy R&D program. It is a coherent plan to test technologies that promise to markedly reduce the problem of nuclear waste treatment and to reduce the proliferation risk in a world with a greatly expanded nuclear power program. It brings the U.S. program into much closer alignment with that of the other major nuclear energy states.

The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) of the Department of Energy has been formulated to perform research leading to advanced fuels and fuel cycles for advanced nuclear power systems. One of the objectives of AFCI is to determine if partitioning and transmutation of spent nuclear fuel will reduce the burden on the geologic repository. The AFCI program is periodically reviewed by the Advanced Nuclear Transmutation Technology (ANTT) subcommittee of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC).

As an element of its plans to return the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) site in eastern Idaho to its historic mission of nuclear technology development, the DOE asked its Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) to establish a Subcommittee on Nuclear Laboratory Requirements. The Subcommittee was charged with identifying the “characteristics, capabilities, and attributes a world-class nuclear laboratory would possess”.

On October 1, 2002 the DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee was asked to provide specific, focused updates to its Nuclear Science and Technology Infrastructure Roadmap and review the specific issues at the DOE key nuclear energy research and development (R&D) laboratories. This activity was assigned to a five-member Infrastructure Task Force (ITF).

The ANTT Subcommittee of NERAC met February 26th and 27th (S. Pillon absent) to begin a review of the potential role of transmutation technologies in increasing the capacity of the geological repository for spent reactor fuel. This work is in support of the recommendation required from the Secretary of Energy later in this decade on the need for a second repository. Since repository issues were under discussion, representatives of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW) were in attendance.

The committee met in Washington in Sept 16-17 to review progress in the program with respect to a changed set of mission priorities. Our last meeting took place in Dec 2002 after the reorganization that had place the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) and GEN IV program together in the Advanced Nuclear Reserach Office (AN-20). Since mission priorities have been evolving, the committee felt that it should wait unti they have settled down before we met again.

The ANTT Subcommittee met in Washington on Dec 4-5, 2002 to review progress in the transmutation program, and to learn about major organizational changes that affect the management of the program. The NE's new Advanced Nuclear Research Office (NE-20) now oversees both the transmutation program (ANTT) and the Generation-IV program (GEN-IV). 

Please include these additional remarks in your transmittal of the subject report to DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

The development of advanced nuclear energy systems in the U.S. will depend greatly on the continued success of currently operating light water nuclear power plants and the ordering of new installations in the short term. DOE needs to give those immediate objectives the highest priority and any additional support they require to assure their success.

DOE is pursuing two initiatives to encourage a greater use of nuclear energy systems. The initiatives have been reviewed by NERAC Subcommittee on Generation IV Technology Planning (GRNS) and they are:

In mid-February, 2001 The University Research Reactor (URR) Task Force (TF), a sub-group of the Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), was asked to:

• Analyze information collected by DOE, the NERAC “Blue Ribbon Panel,” universities, and other sources pertaining to university reactors including their research and training capabilities, costs to operate, and operating data, and

Nuclear energy currently provides approxi- mately 20 percent of the electricity for the U.S. The primary alternative for power generation is fossil fuels. Though still controversial, evidence continues to mount about the negative health and environmental effects of carbon emissions. Nuclear power is the most significant technology available for meeting anticipated energy needs while reducing emissions to the environment.

The Charter of the Generation IV Roadmap Fuel Cycle Crosscut Group (FCCG) is to (1) examine the fuel cycle implications for alternative nuclear power scenarios in terms of Generation IV goals and (2) identify key fuel cycle issues associated with Generation IV goals. This included examination of “fuel resource inputs and waste outputs for the range of potential Generation IV fuel cycles, consistent with projected energy demand scenarios.” This report summarizes the results of the studies.