Everett Redmond
Director of Nonproliferation and Fuel Cycle Policy
Nuclear Energy Institute
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future
Washington, D.C.
October 12, 2010
Testimony for the Record
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today on some of the considerations associated with transitioning from an open fuel cycle to one or more advanced fuel cycles. The technical possibilities are varied—thermal or fast reactors, for example, or degree one or multiple recycling cycles. Despite the possible technical permutations, however, all nuclear fuel cycles require a robust used fuel management program, and such a program has certain common characteristics. First, consistent, sustained political and policy support is required to create the foundation upon which private entities will consider investing in advanced fuel cycle technologies. Second, only mature and reliable technologies will be adopted on a commercial scale by the nuclear power industry, and the transition to a new fuel cycle or fuel cycles will take decades to accomplish. Lastly, geologic disposal of used fuel or used fuel byproducts will be necessary for all fuel cycles.
Moving beyond the open fuel cycle currently used in the United States will require a combination of recycling, advanced reactors, durable federal policies and sustained financial investment. This sustained support and investment will only be justifiable if the advanced fuel cycle provides significant value compared to the open cycle. The question is how to determine if the advanced fuel cycle offers significant value. One could develop detailed metrics by which the various fuel cycles could be compared to the existing open cycle. The metrics would probably include items such as cost to construct and operate, cost to the consumer, reliability, impact on the environment including disposal, and nonproliferation characteristics.
Such an exercise would be informative but, in the end, I think the decision to move away from the current open fuel cycle will be based more on a policy determination about the value of advanced fuel cycles rather than a technical comparison. For example, recycling and using fast reactors could enhance the sustainability and economic viability of the nuclear fuel supply in the United States by reducing the demand for uranium ore. However, the current availability of uranium ore is not being challenged and is not expected to be challenged for approximately 50 to 100 years, based on current estimates. As another example, recycling and using fast reactors could enhance the management and siting of a geologic disposal facility by altering many of the materials destined for disposal—by reducing the heat load and radiotoxicity, for example. However, when considering this potential benefit it should be recognized that used fuel in its current form can be disposed of in various geologies with a combination of natural and engineered barriers, and it is highly unlikely that the entire inventory of used fuel—currently 60,000 MTU and growing—would be recycled. In both examples, there does not appear to be a technical case for switching fuel cycles at this time, based on my oversimplified assessment. However, there is still a potential value, as I discussed: enhanced nuclear fuel supply sustainability and enhanced management and siting of a geologic disposal facility. Another policy area that should be considered when discussing nuclear fuel cycles is nonproliferation, a topic for this afternoon’s panel. Considerations and goals in this area will influence the implementation, if not the choice, of an advanced fuel cycle.
Once the policy decision is made to move beyond the open fuel cycle, the task is to create the foundation upon which the commercial nuclear industry can successfully develop, finance and implement advanced fuel cycles in a competitive marketplace. The foundation will primarily be based on economics and maturity, reliability, and ease of implementing the advanced technologies. Regardless of the value added by an advanced fuel cycle, the ability of the nuclear reactor fleet to produce electricity reliably and efficiently must be maintained. Currently, the light water reactor fleet in the United States has a capacity factor greater than a 90 percent. This capacity factor should be a design goal, if not a requirement, for reactors operating in an advanced fuel cycle. Experience to date indicates that additional research and demonstration is necessary to achieve this goal for fast reactors.
Research, development and demonstration of advanced recycling technologies and advanced reactors should be pursued in a timely manner with the goal of creating real, practical approaches that will be successful in the marketplace. The RD&D should not necessarily strive for a single viable technology. Rather, it is conceivable that more than one technology could be commercialized in the United States to create advanced fuel cycles. With the large number of operating reactors, 104, and the substantial inventory of used fuel in storage, 60,000 MTU and growing, more than one recycling facility will be necessary.
Since alternate fuel cycles create different types of used fuel and byproducts, including, for example, used MOX fuel and vitrified waste, geologic disposal of these alternate waste forms should be considered to the extent practical when contemplating the change from the open cycle. As an illustration, if a policy decision is made to simplify the disposal of high-level waste by recycling currently available used fuel and creating MOX fuel, consideration should be given to the ultimate disposition of the used MOX fuel. Will it be placed in a geologic disposal without being recycled, or will it be recycled into fuel for use in a light water reactor or fast reactor? In this scenario, direct disposal in a geologic disposal facility seems unlikely, since the challenges associated with disposal of used MOX fuel are larger than those associated with disposal of current used fuel. Therefore, it would appear that a key element to a fuel cycle that utilizes MOX fuel, with the goal of simplifying disposal, is more advanced recycling technology and possibly fast reactors. In contrast, if the policy decision is primarily to enhance the sustainability of nuclear fuel supply, direct disposal of used MOX fuel may be desirable.
Research in support of advanced fuel cycles should continue and be conducted with target dates specified for phased development and demonstration of commercial scale ventures based on advances of current day technology. Consistent with the evolutionary manner of technological changes in the commercial nuclear power industry, it is not necessary to wait for decades of research to be completed before implementing new technologies. If fast reactors are to become an element of advanced fuel cycles, a demonstration project should be conducted in the United States. Under any scenario, the efforts currently under way to revise the NRC regulatory framework for licensing of recycling facilities must be completed to permit industry to license commercial facilities at the appropriate time.
Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer questions.