For Official Use
Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

21-Dec-2001___________________________________________________________________________________________English - Or. English

NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY

NUCLEAR SCIENCE COMMITTEENEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
For Official Use
ADVANCED REACTORS WITH INNOVATIVE FUELS WORKSHOPARWIF-2001
Summary

22-24 October 2001
Chester, United Kingdom

English - Or. English

JT00118819

Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d’origine
Complete document available on OLIS in its original format

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

ADVANCED REACTORS WITH INNOVATIVE FUELS WORKSHOPARWIF-2001
October 22-24 2001
Chester, United Kingdom

SUMMARY

Motivation, scope and goals
This workshop was organised following recommendations from the OECD/NEA Nuclear Science
Committee (NSC) that a follow-up to the first ARWIF Workshop, held at PSI in October 1998, would bevaluable. The Workshop falls under the Working Group on the Physics of Plutonium Fuels and Innovative
Systems (WPPR) that reports to the NSC.
A new generation of reactor designs are being developed that are intended to meet therequirements of the 21st Century. In the short term, the most important requirement is to overcome therelative non-competitiveness of current reactor designs in the deregulated market. For this purpose,
evolutionary light water reactor (LWR) designs have been maturing and are being actively promoted.
These are specifically designed to be less expensive to build and operate than the previous generation of
LWRs, genuinely competitive with alternative forms of generation and at the same time establish higher
levels of safety. A new generation of modular, small-to-medium (100-300 MWe/module), integral design
water cooled reactors are under development. These are designed to be competitive with nuclear and nonnuclear power plants, to have significantly enhanced safety, to be proliferation resistant and to reduce theamount of radioactive waste produced. A different approach to improve competitiveness is the reemergence of high temperature reactors (HTR) using gas turbine technology to give higher thermal
efficiencies, low construction and operating costs, inherent safety characteristics, and low proliferationrisk.
In the longer term, assuming that the current stagnation in the market is successfully overcome,other requirements related to long term sustainability will emerge. Important amongst these will be theneed to minimise the environmental burden passed on to future generations (or at least to ensure that thecost to future generations is in balance with the benefits to the current generation), the need to establish
sustainability of fuel and the need to minimise stocks of separated plutonium at the minimum possible
working level and to minimise accessibility to plutonium.
In this context, topics of interest to the Workshop were: reactors consuming excess plutonium,
advanced LWRs, HTRs, fast spectrum reactors, sub-critical systems, minor actinide systems, radical
innovative systems.
The scope of the Workshop comprised reactor physics, fuel performance and fuel material
technology, thermal-hydraulics, core behaviour and fuel cycle of advanced reactors with different types offuels or fuel lattices. Reactor types considered were water-cooled, high temperature gas-cooled and fast
spectrum reactors as well as hybrid reactors with fast and thermal neutron spectra. The emphasis was on
innovative concepts and issues related to the reactor and fuel.

2

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
The Workshop concluded with a wide-ranging panel discussion which considered some difficult
questions from which it is hoped that some recommendations for future priorities can be derived. A recordof the discussion is included at the end of this summary.

Workshop organisation
Scientific advisory committee
General chairman
K Hesketh

P Finck ANL-E
J Gehin ORNL

Local organising committee
A Worrall
D Every
S Crossley
Scientific advisory committee
C Brown BNFL
M Mignanelli AEA-T
M Carelli Westinghouse
W Krebs Framatome-ANPL Walters ANL-W

Rudy Konings EC-ITU
R Chawla PSI
P D’hondt SCK-CEN
J Rouault CEA
P Alekseev Kurchatov Institute
J. Kuijper NRG-NL
J Kim U-Hanyang
A Stanculescu IAEA
E Sartori OECD/NEA

Participation
The workshop was attended by 64 participants from 13 countries and 3 international organisations.
Research laboratories and universities made up approximately 70% of the participants, industry 14%,utilities 5% with the remainder representing international organisations (see Annex 1 for List ofParticipants)
Technical programme
The workshop was organised into seven plenary sessions (including two parallel sessions on thesecond day) in which 35 papers were presented. In addition, 8 papers were presented in a poster session.
Unfortunately, some of the authors were unable to travel following the events of September 11. In two
such cases the authors agreed to forward their presentation slides and their papers were presented by the
local organisers. In two other cases the papers were not presented, but they have nevertheless been retained
within the workshop proceedings and will be published. (See Annex 2 for Workshop Programme)
There was a good response to the call for papers and more abstracts were submitted than the
programme would allow. It was therefore necessary for the Scientific Advisory Committee to reject anumber of abstracts. The majority of the rejections were abstracts for papers which emphasised codes andmethods rather than the advanced systems and it was felt that the workshop should emphasise the latter.
The final plenary discussion was devoted to a panel discussion which considered five questions
that had been compiled previously. Five panel discussion leaders were appointed in advance and asked tolead the discussion on these questions. Following these prepared presentations the discussion was opened
to the floor.

3

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Session summaries and panel discussion
Opening session – Chair: K Hesketh
W Wilkinson opened the proceedings with an invited paper «Barriers and Incentives to Introducing
New Reactors in the Deregulated Electricity Market». The presentation highlighted that from theperspective of a utility operating in a deregulated market, there is only one incentive for new or
replacement nuclear build and that is to obtain a commercial rate of return on the investment. However,while new reactors designs currently available or under development promise to achieve significant
improvements in total generating cost such that they can be competitive in deregulated markets, there arenevertheless some difficult obstacles to overcome. The presentation highlighted in particular the need for astable regulatory environment where potential investors can be certain that the regulatory process will notchange during the course of construction and also the need for the regulatory processes to be consistent indifferent countries. A further point was the need for the environmental discharge requirements to be driven
by rational cost/benefit approaches and not by demanding near-zero discharges without justification. For
sustainable advanced reactors and fuel cycle systems which are intended to stabilise the accumulation of
plutonium and/or the minor actinides, getting the economics right will be a considerable barrier. It seems
likely that any strategy which is primarily designed to achieve significant benefits in terms of waste
reduction, reduced radiotoxicity per GWye etc. will be economically disadvantaged compared withminimum cost generation strategies. Deregulated markets are not presently set-up to deal with anythingother than simple cost-minimisation as a driver and therefore a major barrier in deregulated markets will be
the need to establish mechanisms whereby the non-tangible benefits of advanced fuel cycles can be fullyrecognised.
A paper by L Walters and J Graham "The Need to Preserve Nuclear Fuels and Materials
Knowledge" considered the precarious state of knowledge preservation in the field of fast reactor fueldesign. The authors focused on this area because it reflects their particular expertise, but the situation issimilar in many other areas. The authors suggested holding seminars in specific areas such fast reactor fueldesign to try and capture past knowledge. The approach would be to invite young scientists and engineers
to conduct smart interviews with experienced and retired experts. The former would try to capture theknowledge in writing and the experts would be invited to correct and add to these records. Such exchanges
would complement the existing activities of international organisations, such as NEA, to build up andmaintain knowledge preservation databases.
High temperature gas reactors – Chair: H Beaumont, W Zwermann
Two sessions considered high temperature gas reactors (HTGRs). The papers presented included
one which reviews the European 5th Framework activities in the HTGR field. There are separate
programmes covering fuel technology, neutron physics and fuel cycle technology and materials
technology. These programmes are broad-ranging and include experimental and theoretical studies. There
were also two papers describing theoretical fuel cycle studies for the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR).
The first of these develops a design of B4C burnable poison particles that might be used in a batchrefuelling scheme for PBMR and which explores the effects of self-shielding as a function of particle
diameter and 10B enrichment. The second paper demonstrates the flexibility of the PBMR for utilisingdifferent fuels, including U-Th, U-Pu and Th-Pu. Finally, a poster presentation described a fluidised bed
reactor concept for which coupled neutronics/multi-phase fluid dynamics calculations have been
performed.

4

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Design and performance of innovative fuels – Chair: R Thetford, Y Lee, K Bakker
Ten papers were presented under design and performance of innovative fuels, including two
posters. Inert matrix fuels featured in several of the papers, specifically zirconia –plutonia, zirconium
nitride, cerium-plutonium oxide and rock-like fuels. One paper considered the design of (U-Pu)N fuel for
the RBEC lead-bismuth fast reactor. A paper was presented which describes test irradiations of fast reactor
uranium-plutonium oxide fuels manufactured using the Sphere-Pac and Vipac processes. Two poster
presentations related to the design, fabrication and physical and chemical properties of minor actinide
target fuels.
Evolutionary and modular water reactors – Chair: D Porsch, P D’Hondt, T Downar
Thirteen papers were included in the proceedings under this heading, including four poster
presentations. New reactor concepts include small modular PWRs, an upgraded VVER-440, a simplified
BWR, a simplified PWR, a PWR with supercritical coolant state and reduced moderation LWRs designed
to increase the plutonium breeding ratio. Novel fuel concepts include a PWR using HTGR particle fuel, a
PWR partially loaded with inert matrix fuel and four papers on thorium fuel utilisation in LWRs. The
research emphasis is on enhanced safety and improved utilisation of plutonium.
Fast spectrum reactors – Chair: P Alekseev, H Sekimoto
Five papers were presented under this heading, which was intended to cover critical fast reactors.
The papers included one on a simplified sodium cooled fast reactor which eliminates the intermediate
circuit through the use of novel high integrity steam generators. Other papers described a Pb-Bi cooled fast
reactor and a gas cooled fast reactor, while one considered the performance of minor actinide target fuels.
A novel concept compatible with a very long life core was presented. This is the candle strategy where
only a small axial section of the core undergoes fissions and the fissioning region automatically propagatesaxially at a rate of a few cm per year. The same concept could apply to a thermal system as well. The
emphasis is on fast reactors that are economically competitive with the current generation of LWRs and theevolutionary LWRs derived from them.
Molten salt reactors – Chair: W Zwermann
Three papers on molten salt reactors were presented, two of which are designed for both having an
attractive fissile fuel utilisation and incinerating minor actinides. A third paper, presented as a poster,investigates a thorium- fuelled molten salt subcritical system intended for primary energy generation withlow radiotoxic burdens.
Accelerator driven systems – Chair: C DeRaedt
Five papers were presented on sub-critical accelerator driven systems (including one poster). One
paper described some of the first experimental results for a sub-critical system, while another paper
described plans for planned MYRRHA experimental facility. A cascade molten salt sub-critical system
was described which uses a super-critical central core surrounded by a sub-critical region where the bulk of
the minor actinide transmutation takes place. The super-critical central zone acts to amplify the source
neutrons and reduces the current requirements of the accelerator beam. Another paper described a subcritical molten salt system for minor actinide transmutation.

5

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Miscellaneous themes – Chair: W Zwermann, K Hesketh
Two papers were presented that do not fit exactly with the main session headings. One paper
reviews experimental critical mock-up facilities for various reactor systems. Finally, an interesting concept
was presented that features a core which is only just sub-critical and which uses an accelerator beam tosimulate the effect of delayed neutrons. This system has the advantage of being able to load a large fractionof minor actinides, using a coupling to the accelerator current to mimic the effect of an extra delayed
neutron group. In this way, many of the difficulties of more «conventional» sub-critical systems (such as
demanding beam requirements and rapid spatial variations of flux) are avoided.
Panel discussion – Chair: K Hesketh
A panel discussion was held at the end of the workshop. Six participants agreed to sit on the panel
and lead the discussion on five questions that were notified in advance. The panel members were:
Pierre D’Hondt (CEN-SCK)
Richard Sunderland (NNC)
Hiroshi Sekimoto (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
Joseph Somers (ITU)
Henri Mouney (EDF)
The four questions discussed were:1.

Is there a gap between vendors’ and utilities’ fuel research programmes designed to support
operation and the advanced concept research such as that presented at this conference ? If so, what
can the research community do to narrow the gap ? In other words, does the field need to be mademore relevant to the utilities ?

2.

The benefits of advanced concepts are usually in areas such as safety, proliferation resistance,
environmental impact/radiotoxic burden, strategic and so on. A major weakness is that these are"soft" issues for which there is no agreed measure of the benefit. Are there any actions the researchcommunity could take to promote agreed metrics in these areas ?

3.

What should be our strategy for partitioning and transmutation given the intractability of processing
and destroying curium ? Should there be a policy of encapsulating curium for eventual disposal ?

4.

In the context of the objectives of initiatives such as Gen IV (particularly sustainability), how would
once-though fuel cycles such as those HTGRs fit it ? What role would once-through fuel cycles
play?

Question 1 discussion :Is there a gap between vendors’ and utilities’ fuel research programmes designed to support operationand the advanced concept research such as that presented at this conference ? If so, what can the
research community do to narrow the gap ? In other words, does the field need to be made more
relevant to the utilities ?
Pierre D’Hondt led the discussion for Question 1. He suggested that there are two perceptions ormodels to describe the development process. The first is driven by industry and is associated with«evolutionary» developments on a relatively short timescale. The diagram below illustrates the concept.
The development is derived from an actual demand from industry
6

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
The second is driven by the research community and is associated with «revolutionary» developments on a

Industry

Research Community

relatively long timescale. The diagram below illustrates the model. Here a perceived requirement or the
study of innovative concepts drives developments. Research over a long timescales with or without aspecific focus is normally funded through public agencies; it can be very difficult to interest industry insponsoring research.
In summary, the link from industry to the research community, which is applicable to short term problem

Industry

Research Community

solving and short term improvements with a direct economic benefit, works well. The link in the opposite
direction, concerning long term development from the research community to industry, does not work as
well as it should. Government funding is available to sponsor such research, but it would require the full
involvement of industry to bring to fruition and at the moment industrial organisations, particularly theutilities, show very limited interest. (This is illustrated by the fact that the only utility represented at thisworkshop was EDF.) Other utilities find it difficult to be concerned with anything other than short termissues (maximum time horizon 5 to 10 years). Therefore the conclusion is that there is indeed a gap
between industry and the researchers and that measures need to be taken to narrow the gap for the longterm developments to be implemented industrially.
Points made from the floor during the discussion included :









The key word is MONEY – the research community should highlight the economic gains of new
systems.
It would be useful to have representatives from the utilities at conferences such as this.
The utilities have several options including P&T and underground disposal. Those working onunderground disposal promote that option and there is a danger that if the experts say that this method
is viable then the P&T studies will be sidelined/neglected.
P&T may reduce the cost of underground disposal.
A question that needs to be addressed is how an economic figure can be put on savings due to P&T.
In Japan, issues that might imply that currently operating LWRs may not be safe are at risk of being
suppressed.
In terms of safety and economics, the vendor and the utilities have a conjunction of interest.
In terms of P&T, the customer is the public/government; they should thus be funding it or at least
making a contribution.

Question 2 discussion :The benefits of advanced concepts are usually in areas such as safety, proliferation resistance,
environmental impact/radiotoxic burden, strategic and so on. A major weakness is that these are "soft"
issues for which there is no agreed measure of the benefit. Are there any actions the researchcommunity could take to promote agreed metrics in these areas ?

7

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Richard Sunderland led the discussion by suggesting a few considerations:
On safety he suggested the need for:









Enhanced safety
Improved reliability
Inherent safety (e.g. passive systems)
Advanced control and monitoring systems
Plant simplification
Improved ISI and maintenance
Reduced worker dose
Reduced consequences of severe accidents

On proliferation resistance he noted the need for:
Proliferation resistant fuel cycles
Fissile material accounting
Assured inspection processes (easy accountability and inspection)
IAEA requirements

On environmental impact:Improved fuel utilisation
Reduction in wastes
No increase in natural environmental burden
Decommissioning

He saw strategic concerns as being:








Optimum use of resources
Energy costs: capital, financial and fuel cycle
Construction timescale
SitingSecurity
Profitability
National strategies

In summary:






What shall we do to develop metrics1?
In what areas should metrics be developed?
How can metrics be combined to assess reactor concepts on an equivalent basis?
Who should be involved in metric development: researchers, manufactures, utilities, fuelmanufacturers and reprocessors, the public?
Lead institutions: IAEA, OECD, Governments?

This question is very wide ranging, many factors need to be considered.
1

Metrics – what measures do we adopt to ensure that we meet utility requirements. For example, there is no easymeasure to assess whether one system is more proliferation resistant than another. There is a need todevelop scales to measure these issues.

8

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Hiroshi Sekimoto also addressed this question.






The measure of the benefit depends on the consideration of weight of value.
The consideration of weight of value changes for different persons.
Even for one person it changes with time for different circumstances and environments.
It is almost impossible to set a measure of the benefit, which can be applied to everyone.
Even if the measure is set by public, specialists can offer the options which will be evaluated by sucha measure.

Points made from the floor during the discussion included:






A precedent has been set by the US DOE to answer these questions in terms of the best route for
disposal of weapons grade Pu (e.g. geological disposal or burning). This illustrates the possibility ofapplying metrics to this type of issue.
It is difficult to quantify the values of different systems, and it may need an international working
group to agree on values. The USA is trying to do this for the Generation IV reactors.
In terms of risk categorisation it is relatively easy to converge on a value.
If agreements on metrics could be reached it might be possible to then present these to the public andto shareholders.
Public opinion is not likely to be favourable if the experts are in disagreement.

The discussion illustrates the difficulty of addressing this question. There is a clear agreement of theneed to establish meaningful and useful metrics, but recognition that in most of the areas they are very
difficult to define. The economics of different systems is the only area where clear quantitative metrics
exist and utilities’ decisions are understandably dominated by this aspect. In spite of the difficulties ofmaking progress in this area, it is important enough that it should not be neglected. There may be benefits
in attempting to generate suitable metrics even if they are not perfect, because the process may give rise toimportant new questions and generate new perspectives. There may be benefits to be gained from otherfields, such as environmental protection, where there is a need for analogous metrics. Ultimately, it may be
the general stakeholders (public, government, shareholders, regulatory bodies etc.) who decide which
metrics will apply, and then it would be the research community’s responsibility to provide the specialist
inputs needed to apply the chosen metrics.
Question 3 discussion :What should be our strategy for partitioning and transmutation given the intractability of processing
and destroying curium ? Should there be a policy of encapsulating curium for eventual disposal ?
Joe Somers led the discussion of this question. He began by expanding the question further to ask:






In the transmutation of Cm, is the radiotoxicity reduction sufficiently high?
Are Am/Cm separation processes feasible?
What should the design of the sub-assemblies be?
How to manufacture Cm targets and sub-assemblies?
What are the appropriate logistics (colocation of facilities)?

These in turn lead to further questions:

Encapsulation of Cm - final or interim (the famous 100 years)?
Simple encapsulation or immobilisation matrices?
What type of immobilisation matrix (e.g. Pyrochlore (e.g.Gd1.8Cm0.2ZrO7))?
9

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21Can the interim storage host become the target (e.g. (ZrYCm)O2)?
Management of He and heat damage to the matrix?

Hiroshi Sekimoto pointed out that 244Cm is the curium isotope which initially has the highest
concentration and which is a powerful neutron source, but which decays relatively quickly (18.1 year halflife). There would be clear advantages, therefore, in allowing 244Cm to decay for a few half-lives before
attempting to irradiate curium in targets.
The following additional questions and comments were made from the floor:









What type of partitioning processes could be applied?
What is the necessary investment for these partitioning processes?
It is complicated, chemically, to separate Cm and Am and Am/Cm and the lanthanides. Some
promising methods are under development but a lot of work remains before these processes could beapplied on an industrial scale.
In future it may be necessary to reach a compromise between physics and chemistry.
It may be more reliable to develop systems that utilise incompletely separated fuels i.e. an Am/Cm
mixture needs to be considered.
There is a network in place with an OECD/NEA working party to look at these P&T issues.
P&T may not be so important now but it is important for the far future (2050+); an integrated reactor
and fuel cycle may be needed (e.g. molten salt) to avoid the transport of highly active waste.
Geological disposal should not be ruled out. The USA has an operating geological disposal facility(WIP) for military waste; this demonstrates that geological disposal is viable/possible.

This discussion highlighted the present lack of knowledge in relation to curium and the best
strategy for dealing with it. It is clear that the fabrication of Cm transmutation fuels/targets is technicallydifficult but not impossible. An interim storage period would alleviate these difficulties, but would stillrequire Cm fabrication in a suitable form ensuring chemical durability and management of the considerable
heat and He produced. Such an interim storage strategy would necessitate an active nuclear programme
remaining long after this storage time. It is important to ensure that all possible scenarios are covered,including a scenario in which nuclear energy is no longer deployed at the end of such an interim storage
period. Therefore, it will be necessary to develop strategies, which assume final disposal of curium after apossible interim storage period, alongside long term sustainable strategies where curium is brought intobalance in a transmuter directly after its separation (or possible interim storage).
Question 4 discussion :In the context of the objectives of initiatives such as Gen IV (particularly sustainability), how would
once-though fuel cycles such as those HTGRs fit it ? What role would once-through fuel cycles play?
Henri Mouney led the discussion of this question, beginning by providing a reminder of thedefinition of sustainability: «Development that meets the needs of the present generation withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs» (WCED - 1987). He then listed theissues to be addressed, which are:Sustainability of nuclear energy with the following main requirements :1.

Uranium resources need to be saved
Known resources : 4.3 Mt (NEA - 1997) combined with consumption of 70 kt/year equates to 60
years of supply

10

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
2.

3.
4.
5.
•

Nuclear waste production should be minimised with an adequate Management of Spent Nuclear
Fuel. But, until now no country has yet implemented a permanent solution such as Partitioning
and Transmutation and/or geological disposal
Enhanced safety
Enhanced resistance to proliferation risks
Economic competitiveness which needs to be reinforced

Assets and limits of LWR for sustainable development:ÕÕÕA mature technology with an irreplaceable experience
Convincing results on economy, safety and reliability
For immediate future - new generation of PWR (EPR)High burnup level (65 GWd/t)
Plutonium control
Waste volume reduction
BUT
A non-optimum use of resources - only 1 % of initial U is used (even with
LWR•

reprocessing) in

How can HTGRs fit the objectives of sustainability ?
Õ

The French approach (CEA-FRAMATOME/ANP) : the choice of coolant appears to be a major
element of future nuclear system :- Water is unsuitable to fast neutron systems- Liquid metal leads to a complex fuel handling, and a difficult structure inspection- Gas coolants - their potential must be confirmed particularly in GCR•

Gas cooled reactors (GCR) their technological range potentials are the following :
1.

2.

3.
4.
•

Economics- Simplicity of circuits : a single, direct-cycle circuit- High energy performance : gas goes directly to turbo-alternator- Modularity : small modules, standard, assembled in manufacture- Fast construction, less capital outlay
Safety- Robust fuel in the case of accidental transients (passive safety)- Little interaction between fuel and coolant- Fuel characteristics that are likely to resist to the risk of proliferation
Environment protection
Optimum use of resources and minimisation of waste (fast spectrum)

GCR : an evolutionary technological range for sustainability
1.
2.

For the short term : first configuration is aimed at a direct cycle HTR that modern turbines enable(GT MHR or PBMR)
For the medium term : specialised GCR allowing- Very high temperatures and high efficiency- Optimised configurations for waste transmutation

11

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
3.

For the long term : long-lasting energetic development needs- Fast spectrum for breeding- Complete uranium consumption- Integrated cycle transmuting all the actinides•

Some features of GCRs
Õ Fuel cycle (short term HTR)- Very high burn-up : 120 GWd/t (TRISO particles)- 700 GWd/t (incineration - equivalent to several Pu recyclings in PWR)
Õ Once through fuel cycle» attractive from this objective (transmutation of Pu and Minor
Actinides)
BUTÕ U consumption is 13 to 25 % higher than for a PWR
GCR : The challenge for sustainability is to develop a fast spectrum reactor and an integrated fuelcycle system for effective utilisation of resources and waste production minimisation•

Key technology fields for a gas cooled fast neutron reactor fitting the objectives of sustainability
1. Fuels have to- be confining and refractory- be able to obtain fast spectra and very high combustion levels- authorise different options in reprocessing matter
2. Reprocessing of the spent fuel as integrated as possible with improvements of existing
technologies- Implementation of dry processing, pyroprocessing- A good resistance to proliferation
3. Materials resisting to high temperatures and to fast neutrons allowing passive safety
4. Technology of high temperature helium circuits to be developed and improved
Hiroshi Sekimoto made some additional points on this question:











Sustainability is an important item for the future of human being, such as the future equilibrium
society. However, it will come after a certain period for transition.
Once-through fuel cycles cannot be accepted for the future equilibrium system, but it should be
acceptable in the interim. This depends on the burnup strategy & reprocessing R&D.
For higher burnups such as Pu burner, the once-through option may be acceptable.
For higher fissile content in the spent fuel, the reprocessing option may be better.
Temporarily interim storage option may be attractive.
The questions of safety and proliferation resistance are the most urgent
The question of reducing the radiotoxic burden is less urgent.
Urgent items should be solved soon and promoted with well supported R&D.
However, other items should also be addressed, and supported with enough R&D.

In summary, the research programmes are not yet at the stage where a definite answer can bemade to this question. The research programmes are currently at the stage where feasibility of the various
technical options are being assessed. The role of HTGRs may be as in interim step towards a fully
sustainable fuel cycle or they may find a role as one component of a fuel cycle with a number of different
component reactors. There may be synergistic benefits of HTGRs such as establishing gas cooled
technologies that might later find application in long term sustainable fuel cycles.

12

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Specific actions
It is recommended that a summary of ARWIF-2001 should be presented to the next Nuclear
Science Committee Meeting in June 2002. This presentation should specifically include a discussion of thefour questions considered in the panel discussion and the responses to those questions. It is recommended
that the Nuclear Science Committee also debate whether it considers that a third ARWIF workshop, to beheld in 2004 would be useful.

13

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Annex 1
List of Participants_______________________________________________________________________________BELARUSKIYAVITSKAYA, Hanna
Project Manager
Institute of Radiation
Physics and Chemistry Problems
Acad. Krasin str. 99
220109 MINSK-SOSNY

Tel: ++375 172 46 74 58
Fax: ++375 172 46 73 17
Eml: anna@sosny.bas-net.by

BELGIUM
DE RAEDT, Charles
Project Leader
SCK CEN Nuclear Research Cent
Boeretang, 200
2400 Mol

Tel: +32 14 33 22 71
Fax: +32 14 32 15 29
Eml: cdraedt@sckcen.be

D’HONDT, Pierre Joseph
SCK/CEN
200 Boeretang
B-2400 MOL

Tel: +32 14 33 22 00
Fax: +32 14 32 15 29
Eml: pdhondt@sckcen.be

CZECH REPUBLIC
HRON, Miloslav
Nuclear Research InstituteRez, plc
CZ-250 68 REZ

Tel: +420 (0)2 66172370
Fax: +420 (0)2 20940156
Eml: hron@nri.cz

UHLIR, Jan
Head, Fluorine Chem. Dept.
Nuclear Research Institute Rez plc
25068 Rez

Tel: +420(0)2 6617 3548
Fax: +420(0)2 209 405 52
Eml: uhl@ujv.cz* VESPALEC, Rudolf
Head of Department
Reactor Physics & Fuel Management
Czech Power Works
Nuclear Power Plant Dukovany
675 50 Dukovany

Tel: +420 618 81 4608
Fax: +420 618 86 6111
Eml: vespar1.edu@mail.cez.cz* ZEZULA, Lubor
Research Worker
Nuclear Research Institute Rez plc
2505 68 REZ

Tel: +420 2 6617 2083
Fax: +420 2 2094 0954
Eml: zez@ujv.cz

FRANCE* BERNARDIN, Bruno
Engineer
DER/SERSI, Bât.212
CEA CADARACHE
13113 ST-PAUL LEZ DURANCE

Tel: +33 4 42 25 63 66
Fax: +33 4 42 25 40 46
Eml: bernardin@drncad.cea.fr

BIGNAN, Gilles
CEN CADARACHE
Bat. 238
DER/SSAR/LDMN
13108 ST PAUL LEZ DURANCE

Tel: +33 4225 4816
Fax: +33 4225 7025
Eml: bignan@cea.fr

14

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21* BOUILLOUX, Yves
CEN Cadarache
DRN/DEC
Bât. 155
F-13108 ST. PAUL-LEZ-DURANCE CEDEX

Tel: +33 4 4225 4816
Fax:
Eml: ybouilloux@cea.fr

CHANTOIN, Pierre
Projet RJH
Bat.780
Centre de Cadarache
F-13108 St. Paul-lez Durance Cedex

Tel: +33 4 42 25 76 86
Fax: +33 4 42 25 62 99
Eml: pierre.chantoin@cea.fr

CHAUVIN, Nathalie
CEA-Cadarache
DEN/DTAP/SPI bat 780
F-13108 SAINT-PAUL-LEZ-DURANCE Cedex

Tel: +33 4 42 25 48 10
Fax: +33 4 42 25 74 60
Eml: nchauvin@cea.fr* DELPECH, Marc
CE Cadarache
DER/SERI/LCSI
Bat. 212
F-13108 St. Paul les Durance Cedex

Tel: +33 (0) 4 42 25 28 82
Fax: +33 (0) 4 42 25 71 87
Eml: marc.delpech@cea.fr

DUMAZ, Patrick
CEA
CEA Cadarache
13108 Saint Paul-lez-Durance cedex

Tel: +33 (0)4 42 25 40 98
Fax:
Eml: Patrick.Dumaz@cea.fr* GAUTIER, G.M.
CEA Cadarache
F-13108 SAINT PAUL-LEZ-DURANCE

Tel: +33 4 4225 4098
Fax:
Eml: gmgautier@cea.fr

GRENECHE, Dominique
Tel: +33 1 39 48 51 88
COGEMA
Fax: +33 1 39 48 51 64
DSP/DIST
Eml: dgreneche@cogema.fr
1, rue des Herons Montigny Le Bretonnneux
78182 St Quentin en Yvelines CEDEXLECARPENTIER, DavidEDF R&D departement PhR
1 av. du general de gaulle
92141 Clamart Cedex

Tel: +33 1 4765 4195
Fax: +33 1 4765 4399
Eml: david-n.lecarpentier@edf.fr

LORIETTE, Philippe
Project Manager
EDF
1, av Charles De gaulle
92141 Clamart Cedex

Tel: +33 1 4765 5792
Fax: +33 1 4765 3499
Eml: philippe.loriette@edf.fr

MOUNEY, Henri
EDF-POLE INDUSTRIEDivision Ingénierie et Services
CAP AMPERE
1, place Pleyel
F-93282 SAINT DENIS CEDEX

Tel: +33 1 4369 0452/4369 0463
Fax: +33 1 43 69 04 55
Eml: henri.mouney@edf.fr* PORTA, Jacques
CEA/DRN/DER/SERSICEN Cadarache

Tel: +33 (4) 42 25 36 31
Fax: +33 (4) 42 25 40 46
Eml: jporta@cea.fr

15

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Bat. 211
F-13108 St.-Paul-lez-Durance Cedex* ROUAULT, Jacques
Département d'Etudes des Réacteurs
Service d'Etudes des Réacteurs Innovants
Bt 212 CE Cadarache
13 108 Saint Paul Lez Durance
GERMANYPORSCH, Dieter
Framatone-ANP
Dept. NBTIPostfach 3220
D-91050 Erlangen

Tel: +33 4 42 25 7265
Fax: +33 4 42 25 48 58
Eml: jrouault@drncad.cea.fr

Tel: +49 9131 18 95542
Fax: +49 9131 18 92453
Eml: Dieter.Porsch@framatome-anp.de

ZWERMANN, Winfried
Gesellschaft fuer Anlagenund Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH
Forschungsgelaende
D-85748 GARCHING

Tel: +49 (89) 320 04 425
Fax: +49 (89) 320 04 599
Eml: zww@grs.de

JAPAN* AIZAWA, Otokiko
Musashi Institute of Technology
Tamazutsumi 1-28-1
Setagaya-ku
Tokyo 158-8557

Tel: +81 03 3703 3111 (ext. 3805)
Fax: +81 03 5707 1172
Eml: oaizawa@eng.musashi-tech.ac.jp

AKIE, Hiroshi
Advanced Reactor Systems
Dept. Nuclear Energy SystemJAERITOKAI-MURA, Naka-gun
Ibaraki-ken 319-1195

Tel: +81 (29) 2 82 6939
Fax: +81 (29) 2 82 6805
Eml: akie@mike.tokai.jaeri.go.jp* HIRAIWA, Kouji
System Design and Engineering Dept.
Toshiba Corporation Yokohama Facility
Isogo Nuclear Engineering Center
8 Shinsugita-cho, Isogo-ku
YOKOHAMA 235-8523

Tel: +81 45 770 2047
Fax: +81 45 770 2179
Eml: kouji.hiraiwa@toshiba.co.jp* KITAGAWA, Kenichi
Representative Director
Nuclear Fuel Industries Ltd.
Europe Office
10 rue de Louvois
75002 Paris

Tel: +33 1 44 86 05 75
Fax: +33 1 44 86 05 80
Eml: k-kitagw@nfi.co.jp

KUSAGAYA, Kazuyuki
Fuel Safety Research Laboratory
Dept. of Reactor Safety Research
JAERI
2-4 Shirakata-shirane, Tokai-muraNaka-gun, Ibaraki-ken 319-1195

Tel: +81 29 282 5279
Fax: +81 29 282 5429
Eml:

* MATSUMOTO, Takaaki
Hokkaido University
Dept. of Nuclear Engineering

Tel: +81 11 706 6682
Fax: +81 11 706 7888
Eml: mtmt@qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp

16

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Kita-13, Nishi-8
SAPPORO-SHI 06O-0813
MORO, Satoshi
The Institute of Applied Energy
Shinbashi SY Bidg.
14-2 Nishishinbashi 1-chome
Minato-ku
Tokyo, 105-0003

Tel: +81 3 3508 8894
Fax: +81 3 3501 1735
Eml: moro@iae.or.jp

SEKIMOTO, Hiroshi
Tokyo Institute of Technology
Research Lab. for Nuclear Reactors
2-12-1 O-okayama, Meguroku
TOKYO 152-8550

Tel: +81 3 5734 3066
Fax: +81 3 5734 2959
Eml: hsekimot@nr.titech.ac.jp

SHIMAZU, Yoichiro
Division of Quantum Energy
Graduate School of Engineering
Hokkaido University
Kita 13, Nishi 8, Kita-ku
Sapporo 060-8628

Tel: +81 11 706 6676
Fax: +81 11 707 7888
Eml: shimazu@qe.eng.hokudai.ac.jp

YAMASHITA, Toshiyuki
Dept. of Nuclear Energy System
Research Group for Advanced Fuel
JAERI
Tokai-mura Ibaraki-ken 319-1195

Tel: +81 29 282 6951
Fax: +81 29 282 5935
Eml: yamasita@analchem.tokai.jaeri.go.jp

KOREA (REPUBLIC OF)
LEE, Young-Woo
Principal Research Scientist
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute
P.O. Box 105
Yuseong, Taejon 305-600

Tel: +82 42 868 2129
Fax: +82 42 868 8868
Eml: ywlee@kaeri.re.kr

NETHERLANDS
BAKKER, Klaas
NRG
Nuclear Chemistry Dept.
Postbus 25
NL-1755 ZG PETTEN

Tel: +31 (224) 56 43 86
Fax: +31 (224) 56 36 08
Eml: k.bakker@nrg-nl.com

BERTHOU, VeroniqueInterfaculty Reactor InstituteTechnology University of Delft
Mekelweg 152629 JB DELFT

Tel: +31 15 278 21 63
Fax:
Eml: v.berthou@iri.tudelft.nl

KUIJPER, Jim C.
Fuels, Actinides and Isotopes
NRG
Postbus 25
NL-1755 ZG PETTEN

Tel: +31 (224) 56 4506
Fax: +31 (224) 56 3490
Eml: kuijper@nrg-nl.com

RUSSIAN FEDERATIONALEKSEEV, Pavel N.
Executive Director
Nuclear Power Development Institute
RRC Kurchatov InstituteKurchatov Square, 1
123182 MOSCOW

Tel: +7 (095) 196 7621
Fax: +7 (095) 196 3708
Eml: apn@dhpt.kiae.ru

17

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

KALUGIN, Mikhail A.
RRC (Kurchatov Institute)
Dept. Physical and Technical Researchof Advanced Reactors
Kurchatov Square, 1
123182 MOSCOW

Tel: +7 (095) 1969279
Fax: +7 (095) 1969944
Eml: kalugin@adis.vver.kiae.ru

KOUZNETSOV, VladimirTel: +7 095 190 8135
A.A. Bochvar, All-Russia Research Institu Fax: +7 095 882 5720 or 190 5116
of Organic Material VNIINM
Eml: kvi@bochvar.ru
Rogova St. 5
P.O.Box 369
123060 Mosco
MIKITYUK, Konstantin
RRC (Kurchatov Institute)
Kurchatov Square, 1
123182 MOSCOW

Tel: +7 095 196 7016
Fax: +7 095 196 3708
Eml: kon@dhtp.kiae.ru

VASILIEV, Alexander
Senior Researcher
RRC Kurchatov InstituteKurchatov sq.
Moscow 123282

Tel: +7 (095) 1967016
Fax: +7 (095) 1963708
Eml: avas@dhtp.kiae.ru

SWEDENHELMERSSON, Sture
Technology and Development Mgr
Westinghouse Atom
SE-72163 Västerås

Tel: +46 (21) 107169
Fax: +46 (21) 182737
Eml: sture.helmersson@se.westinghouse.com

SWITZERLAND
DEGUELDRE, Claude
Paul Scherrer Institute
OHLA / 131
CH-5232 VILLIGEN PSI

Tel: +41 (0)56 3104176
Fax: +41 (0)56 3102205
Eml: claude.degueldre@psi.ch

KASEMEYER, Uwe
Paul Scherrer InstituteCH-5232 VILLIGEN PSI

Tel: +41 56 310 20 46
Fax: +41 56 310 23 27
Eml: uwe.kasemeyer@psi.ch

STREIT, MarcoPaul Scherrer InstituteLaboratory for Materials Behaviour
OHLB/410
CH-5232 VILLIGEN PSI

Tel: +41 (0)56 310 4385
Fax: +41 (0)56 310 4438
Eml: Marco.Streit@psi.ch

TURKEY* COLAK, Uner
Nuclear Engineering Dept.
Hacettepe University
Onder Caddesi 3/7 Mebusevleri
BEYTEPE 06532 ANKARA

Tel: +90 (312) 297 7300
Fax: +90 (312) 299 2078
Eml: uc@nuke.hun.edu.tr* KADIROGLU, Osman Kemal
Hacettepe University
Nuclear Engineering Department
Hacetepe University
BeytepeAnkaraTel: +90 312 2220774
Fax: +90 312 2992078
Eml: okk@alum.mit.edu

UNITED KINGDOM

18

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21* ABRAM, Timothy J.
Research and Technolgy
BNFL Springfields
SALWICK, PRESTON PR4 OXJ

Tel: +44 (0)1772 764696
Fax: +44 (0)1772 762470
Eml: tim.j.abram@bnfl.com

ACKROYD, Ron T.
Computational Physics and Geophysics
Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2BP

Tel: +44 20 7594 9319
Fax: +44 20 7594 9341
Eml: r.transport@ic.ac.uk

BARKER, Fred
Nuclear Policy Analyst
4 St. John’s CloseHEBDEN BRIDGE
HX7 8DP

Tel: +44 (0) 1 422 847 189
Fax:
Eml: fbarker@gn.apc.org

BEAUMONT, Heather
NNC Ltd.
Booths Hall
Chelford RoadKNUTSFORD
Cheshire WA16 8QZ

Tel: +44 15656 843232
Fax: +44 15656 843878
Eml: heather.beaumont@nnc.co.uk

BLUE, Roger
Group Manager, International Affairs
BNFL
Risley, Warrington
Cheshire WA3 6AS

Tel: +44 1925 832 668
Fax: +44 1925 833 704
Eml: roger.p.blue@bnfl.com

BUCKTHORPE, Derek
NNC Limited
Booths Hall
Chelford RoadKNUTSFORD,
Cheshire WA16 8QZ

Tel:
Fax:
Eml: Derek.Buckthorpe@nnc.co.uk* CLEGG, Richard
Manager, Waste Disposal Res.
British Nuclear Fuels plc
Building B229
Sellafield, Seascale
Cumbria CA20 1PG

Tel: +44(19467) 75925
Fax: +44(19467) 76984
Eml: richard.clegg@bnfl.com

CROSSLEY, Steven J.
British Nuclear Fuels plc
Springfields
PrestonLancashire PR4 0XJ

Tel: +44 1772 762216
Fax: +44 (1772) 76 38 88
Eml: steven.j.crossley@bnfl.com

EATON, Matthew
Imperial College
T.H. Huxley School
Prince Consort RoadLONDON SW7 2BP

Tel: +44 171 594 9323
Fax: +44 171 594 9341
Eml: m.eaton@ic.ac.uk

EVERY, Denis P.
British Nuclear Fuels plc
Springfields
PrestonLancashire PR4 0XJ

Tel: +44 1772 762842
Fax: +44 1772 763888
Eml: denis.p.every@bnfl.com

19

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

FRANKLIN, Simon
Director of Reactor Operations & Safety
Imperial College Reactor Centre
Silwood Park,
Buckhurst Road,
Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7TE

Tel: +44 (0) 207 5942291
Fax: +44 (0) 1344624931
Eml: s.franklin@ic.ac.uk

GODDARD, Anthony
Imperial College
TH Huxley School
Royal School of Mines Building
Prince COnsort RoadLONDON SW7 2BP

Tel: +44 171 594 9320
Fax: +44 171 594 9341
Eml: a.goddard@ic.ac.uk

GOMES, Jefferson
Imperial College
T.H. Huxley School
Royal School of Mines Building
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2BP

Tel: +44 171 594 9322
Fax:
Eml: j.gomes@ic.ac.uk

HESKETH, Kevin(Chairman)
British Nuclear Fuels plc
Research and Technology
B709 Springfields
Salwick Preston
Lancashire PR4 0XJ

Tel: +44 1772 76 23 47
Fax: +44 1772 76 24 70
Eml: Kevin.W.Hesketh@bnfl.com

LENNOX, Tom
Ms Heather BEAUMONTNNC Ltd.
Booths Hall
Chelford RoadKNUTSFORD

Tel: +44 15656 843470
Fax: +44 15656 843878
Eml: tom.lennox@nnc.co.uk

MIGNANELLI, Michael
AEA Technology plc
Nuclear Science
220 Harwell, Didcot,
Oxfordshire, OX11 0RA

Tel: +44 1235 43 4300
Fax: +44 1235 43 6314
Eml: mike.mignanelli@aeat.co.uk

MURGATROYD, Julian
NNC Ltd.
Booths Hall
Chelford RoadKNUTSFORD
Sheshire WA16 8QZ

Tel: +44 1565 843696
Fax:
Eml: julian.murgatroyd@nnc.co.uk

NEWTON, Tim
Reactor Analysis Team Leader Fax:
Serco Assurance
Winfrith Technology Centre 303/A32
DORCHESTER

Tel: +44 (0) 1 305 20 2061
+44 (0) 1 305 20 2194
Eml: tim.newton@sercoassurance.com

PAIN, Christopher
Imperial College
T.H. Huxley School
Royal School of Mines Building
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2BP

Tel: +44 171 594 9322
Fax: +44 171 594 9341
Eml: c.pain@ic.ac.uk

SMITH, Peter

Tel: +44 (0) 1 305 20 3706

20

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
SERCO Assurance
378/A32
RISLEY
Warrington, Cheshire WA3 6AT

Fax: +44 (0) 1 305 20 2194
Eml: peter.j.smith@sercoassurance.com

SUNDERLAND, Richard
Reactor Systems and Advanced Technology
NNC Ltd.
Chelford RoadKNUTSFORD, Cheshire WA16 8QZ

Tel: +44 (0) 1565 843061
Fax: +44 (0) 1565 843878
Eml: richard.sunderland@nnc.co.uk

THETFORD, Roger
SERCO Assurance
424 Harwell
DidcotOxfordshire
OX11 0QJ

Tel: +44 1235 433975
Fax: +44 1235 436798
Eml: roger.thetford@sercoassurance.com

WILKINSON, William L.
Department of Chemical Engineeringand Chemical Technology
Imperial College
Prince Consort Road
London SW7 2BP

Tel:
Fax:
Eml:

WORRALL, Andy
(Local Organisation)
British Nuclear Fuels plc
MOX Design and Licensing
B709, Research & Technology Dept.
Springfields, Salwick
Preston, Lancashire, PR4 0XJ

Tel: +44 1772 764474
Fax: +44 1772 762470
Eml: andrew.worrall@bnfl.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA* CARELLI, Mario D.
Manager, Energy Systems
Westinghouse Electric Company,
1344 Beulah Road,
Pittsburgh,
PA 15235-5083

Tel: +1 412 256 1042
Fax: +1 412 256 2444
Eml: carellmd@westinghouse.com

DOWNAR, Thomas J.
School of Nuclear Engineering
Purdue University
1290 Nuclear Engineering Bldg
W. LAFAYETTE, IN 47907-1290

Tel: +1 (765) 494 5752
Fax: +1 (765) 494 9570
Eml: downar@ecn.purdue.edu

GEHIN, Jess C.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Building 6025, MS-6363
Bethel Valley Road
P.O.Box 2008
OAK-RIDGE, Tennessee 37831-6363

Tel: +1 865 576 5093
Fax: +1 865 574 9619
Eml: gehinjc@ornl.gov* HAYES, Steven L.
Tel: +1 208 533 7255
Manager, Reactor Fuels & Materials Sectio Fax: +1 208 533 7863
Argonne National Laboratory-West
Eml: steven.hayes@anl.gov
P.O. Box 2528,
Idaho Falls, ID 83403-2528
INGERSOLL, Daniel T.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008, Bldg. 6025,
Bethel Valley Road,

Tel: +1 865 574 6102
Fax: +1 865 574 9619
Eml: ingersolldt@ornl.gov

21

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Oak Ridge, TN37831-6363,

PETROVIC, Bojan
Senior Scientist
Westinghouse Science andTechnology Department
1344 Beulah Road,
Pittsburgh, PA 15235

Tel: +1 412 256 1295
Fax: +1 412 256 2444
Eml: PetrovB@westinghouse.com*

TODOSOW, Michael
Brookhaven National Lab
Associated Universities, Inc
Bldg 475B, PO Box 5000
Upton
Long Island NY 11973-5000

Tel: +1 631 344 2445
Fax: +1 631 344 7650
Eml: todosowm@bnl.gov*

WALTERS, Leon
Director, Engineering Div.
ANL - West
P.O. Box 2528
Idaho Falls, ID 83403-2528

Tel: +1 (208) 533 7384
Fax: +1 (208) 533 7340
Eml: leon.walters@anl.gov

International Organisations
ANGERS, Laetitia
Nuclear Engineer
IAEA
Wagramerstrasse 5
P.O. 100
A-1400 WIEN*

Tel: +43 1 2600 22770
Fax:
Eml: l.g.angers@iaea

TOVESSON, Fredrik
EC-JRC-IRMM
Retieseweg
B-2440 GEEL

Tel: +32 14 571350
Fax: +32 14 571376
Eml: fredrik.tovesson@irmm.jrc.be

SARTORI, Enrico(Secretary)
OECD/NEA Data Bank
Le Seine-Saint Germain
12 boulevard des Iles
F-92130 ISSY-LES-MOULINEAUX

Tel: +33 1 45 24 10 72 / 78
Fax: +33 1 45 24 11 10 / 28
Eml: sartori@nea.fr

SOMERS, Joseph
Institute for Transuranium Elements
Postfach 2340
D-76125 KarlsruheTel: +49 (07247)951 359
Fax: +49 (07247)951 566
Eml: somers@itu.fzk.de

regret not have been able to travel

14 countries, 3 international organisations, 40 establishments or institutes, 84
registered participants (64 actually attended, 10 had their paper presented, and 10
others could not attend because of travel restrictions at that time).

22

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
Annex 2
Advanced Reactors with Innovative Fuels (ARWIF-2001 )Chester, UK, 22-24 October 2001
Programme
Monday, 22 October - Plenary Sessions
Opening Session - (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Kevin Hesketh
09:00 Opening Address
A. Worrall, K. Hesketh
09:30(1.1) W.L. Wilkinson: Barriers and Incentives to Introducing New Reactors in the DeregulatedMarket
10:00 (1.2) Leon C. Walters (ANL-W-Idaho, USA), John Graham (ETCetera Assessments LLP, USA)(presented by K. Hesketh) The Need to Preserve Nuclear Fuels and Materials Knowledge
10:30 COFFEEHigh Temperature Gas Reactors
Chairman: Derek Buckthorpe
11:00 (1.3) T. J. Abram (BNFL, UK), D. Hittner (Framatome ANP, France), W. von Lensa (FZJülich, Germany), A. Languille (CEA, France), D. Buckthorpe (NNC, UK), J. Guidez (ECJRC), J. Martin-Bermejo (EC DG-Research) European Collaboration on Research into High
Temperature Reactor Technology
11:30 (1.5) V. Berthou, J.L. Kloosterman, H. Van Dam, T.H.J.J. Van der Hagen (IRI-Delft, The
Netherlands) Design of B4C Burnable Particles Mixed in LEU Fuel for HTRs
12:15 LUNCH
Design and Performance of Innovative Fuels I (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Roger Thetford
13:30 (2.1) C. Degueldre, F. Ingold, C. Hellwig, P. Heimgartner (PSI-Villigen, Switzerland) , S.
Conradson (LANL, USA), M. Döbeli (PSI-ETH-Zurich, Switzerland), Y. W. Lee (KAERI, R.O.
Korea) Extensive Characterisation of a Material for understanding its Behaviour as a Nuclear
Fuel: the Case of a Zirconia - Plutonia Inert Matrix Fuel.
14:00 (2.2.) M. Streit, F. Ingold (PSI-Villigen, Switzerland), L.J. Gauckler (ETH-Zürich, Switzerland),
J-P. Ottaviani (CEA-Cadarache, France) Annular Plutonium Zirconium Nitride Fuel Pellets
14:30 (2.3) Toshiyuki Yamashita, Ken-ichi Kuramoto, Hiroshi Akie, Yoshihiro Nakano, Noriko
Nitani, Takehiko Nakamura, Kazuyuki Kusagaya (JAERI-Tokai-mura, Japan) and ToshihikoOhmichi (RIST-Tokai-mura, Japan) Rock-Like Oxide Fuels for Burning Excess Plutonium in
LWRS
15:00 COFFEE
Evolutionary and Modular Water Reactors I (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Dieter Porsch
15:30 (2.4) Bojan Petrovic, Mario Carelli (WEC-STD, USA), Ehud Greenspan, Hiroshi Matsumoto(UC-Berkeley, USA), Enrico Padovani, Francesco Ganda (Politecnico-Mi, Italy) Innovative
Features and Fuel Design Approach in the IRIS Reactor
16:00 (2.5) Kouji Hiraiwa, Noriyuki Yoshida, Mikihide Nakamaru, Hideaki Heki, (Toshiba-Corp.,
Japan), Masanori Aritomi (TIT, Japan) (not presented orally) Core Concepts for Long Operating
23

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

16:30

Cycle Simplified BWR (LSBWR)(2.6) H. Akie, Y. Nakano, T. Shirakawa, T. Okubo and T. Iwamura (JAERI, Japan) Core Design
Study on Reduced-Moderation Water Reactors (RMWRs)

Tuesday, 23 October - Parallel Sessions
Design and Performance of Innovative Fuels II - (Victoria Room)
Chairman: Young Woo Lee
09:00(3.1) Young –Woo Lee (KAERI, R.O. Korea) Application of Ceramic Nuclear Fuel Materials
for Innovative Fuels and Fuel Cycles
09:30 (3.2) K. Bakker and H. Thesingh (NRG-Petten, Netherlands), T. Ozawa, Y. Shigetome, S. Kono
and H. Endo (JNC, Japan), Ch. Hellwig, P. Heimgartner, F. Ingold and H. Wallin (PSI-Villigen,
Switzerland) Innovative MOX Fuel for Fast Reactor Applications
10:00 (3.3) K. Kusagaya, T. Nakamura, M. Yoshinaga, H. Akie, T. Yamashita and H. Uetsuka (JAERI,
Japan) Behaviour of Rock-like Oxide Fuels Under Reactivity Initiated Accident Conditions
10:30 COFFEE
Design and Performance of Innovative Fuels III - (Victoria Room)
Chairman: Klas Bakker
11:00 (3.4) A. Vasiliev, P. Alekseev, K. Mikityuk, P. Fomitchenko, A. Shestopalov (RRC-KI, RussianFederation) Theoretical Requirements to Tolerances to be Imposed on Fuel Rod Design
Parameters for RBEC Lead-bismuth Fast Reactor
11:30(3.5) Jacques Porta, Bernard Gastaldi, Cécile Krakowiak-Aillaud, Laurence Buffe (CEACadarache,France) Advanced Plutonium Assembly (APA) : Evolution of the concept, neutron,and thermal-mechanic constraints
Evolutionary and Modular Water Reactors II - (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Pierre D'hondt
09:00 (4.1) Thomas J. Downar, Yunlin Xu (Purdue-University-W.Lafayette, USA) The Utilization ofThorium Fuel in a Generation IV Light Water Reactor Design
09:30 (4.2) Dieter Porsch (Framatome-ANP- Erlangen, Germany), Dieter Sommer (KKW-Obrigheim,
Germany) Thorium Fuel in LWRs - An Option for an Effective Reduction of Plutonium Stock
Piles
10:00 (4.3) Y. Shimazu (Hokkaido Univ., Japan), H. Tochihara (EDC, Japan), Y. Akiyama(MHI,
Japan), K. Itoh (NDC, Japan) PWRs using HTGR Fuel Concept with Cladding for Ultimate
Safety
10:30
COFFEE
Fast Spectrum Reactors I - (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Pavel Alekseev
11:00(4.4) D.V. Sherwood, T.A. Lennox (NNCL-Knutsford, UK) A Simplified LMFBR Concept(SFR)
11:30 (4.6A&B) H.M. Beaumont, A. Cheyne, J. Gilroy, G. Hulme, T. A. Lennox, J. T. Murgatroyd,R. E. Sunderland, E. K. Whyman (NNC) and S. J. Crossley, D. P. Every (BNFL) The Design
and Flexibility of the Enhanced Gas Cooled Reactor (EGCR)
12:00
LUNCH
Molten Salt Reactors / HTGR II - (Victoria Room)
Chairman: Winfried Zwermann
13:30 (5.1) P.N.Alekseev, A.A. Dudnikov, V.V. Ignatiev, N.N. Ponomarev-Stepnoy, V.N. Prusakov,
S.A. Subbotin, A.V. Vasiliev, R.Ya. Zakirov (RRC-KI-Moscow, Russian F.) Molten Salt
24

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

14:00

14:30

15:00
15:30

Reactor for Burning of Transuranium Nuclides Forming in Closed Nuclear Fuel Cycle(5.2) D. Lecarpentier, C. Garzenne, J. Vergnes, H. Mouney (EDF, France), M. Delpech (CEACadarache, France) AMSTER : A Molten-Salt Reactor Concept Generating its own 233-U and
Incinerating Transuranium Elements(5.3) U. E. Sikik, H. Dikmen, Y. Çeçen, Ü. Çolak, O.K. Kadiroglu (Hacettepe-University,
Turkey) (presented by K. Hesketh) Thorium and Plutonium Utilization in Pebble Bed Modular
Reactor(5.4) Bruno Bernardin (CEA-Cadarache, France) (presented by P. Dumaz) A New Approach for
the Systems Dedicated to the Transmutation: the Reactor with Compensated Beta
COFFEE

Evolutionary and Modular Water Reactors III - (Victoria Room)
Chairman: Thomas Downar
16:00(5.5) U. Kasemeyer, C. Hellwig, R. Chawla (PSI-Villigen, Switzerland), D.W. Dean (StudsvikScandpower, USA), G. Meier (KKW-Gösgen-Däniken, Switzerland), T. Williams (EGLaufenburg, Switzerland) Feasibility of Partial LWR Core Loadings with Inert Matrix Fuel
16:30
(5.6) P. Dumaz, A. Bergeron, G.M. Gautier, J.F. Pignatel, G. Rimpault, G. Youinou (CEACadarache) CEA Studies About Innovative Water-cooled Reactor Concepts
Accelerator Driven Systems - (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Charles DeRaedt
13:30 (6.1) Sergei E. Chigrinov, Hanna I. Kiyavitskaya, Ivan G. Serafimovich, Christina K.
Rutkovskaia, Yurij Fokov, Anatolij M. Khilmanovich, Boris A. Marstinkevich, Victor V.
Bournos, Sergei V. Korneev, Sergei E. Mazanik, Alla V. Kulikovskaya, Tamara P. Korbut,
Natali K. Voropaj, Igor V. Zhouk, Mikhail K. Kievec, Igor L. Rakhno (RPh&ChPI-Minsk,
Belarus), Experimental Investigations of the Accelerator Driven Transmutation Technologies at
the Subcritical Facility "YALINA"
14:00(6.2) H. Ait Abderrahim, P. Kupschus, Ph. Benoit, E. Malambu, K. Van Tichelen, B. Arien, F.
Vermeersch, Th. Aoust, Ch. De Raedt, S. Bodart, P. D'hondt (SCK-CEN, Belgium) MYRRHA,
A Multi-purpose ADS for R&D - Pre-design Phase Completion
14:30(6.3) A. Vasiliev, P. Alekseev, A. Dudnikov, K. Mikityuk, S. Subbotin (RRC-KI, RussianFederation) Optimization of Conceptual Design of Cascade Subcritical Molten Salt Reactor
15:00 COFFEE
Fast Spectrum Reactors II - (Osbourne Suite)
Chairman: Hiroshi Sekimoto
15:30(6.4) P. Alekseev, P. Fomichenko, K. Mikityuk, V. Nevinitsa, T. Shchepetina, S. Subbotin, A.
Vasiliev (RRC-KI-Moscow, Russian F.) RBEC Lead-Bismuth Cooled Fast Reactor: Review ofConceptual Decisions
16:00(6.5) T.D. Newton and P.J. Smith (AEAT-Winfrith, UK) Design and Performance Studies for
Minor Actinide Target Fuels
16:30(6.6) Hiroshi Sekimoto (TIT, Japan) Applications of “CANDLE” Burnup Strategy to Several
Reactors
18:30
POSTER SESSION (Albert Room)(8.1) J. Somers, A. Fernandez, R.J.M. Konings (JRC-ITU-Karlsruhe, Germany), G. Ledergerber (KKWLeibstadt, Switzerland) Some Views on the Design and Fabrication of Targets or Fuels Containing
Curium(8.2) M.A. Mignanelli, R. Thetford (Serco Assurance. UK) Thermophysical and Chemical Properties of
Minor Actinide Fuels(8.3) F. Tovesson, F.-J. Hambsch, S. Oberstedt (JRC-IRMM-Geel, Belgium), A. Oberstedt (Örebro25

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21
University, Sweden), B. Fogelberg, E. Ramström (Studsvik-Nyköping, Sweden) Determination of the
233-Pa(n,f) Reaction Cross Section for Thorium Fueled Reactors(8.4) A. Polismakov, V. Tsibulsky, A. Chibinyaev, P. Alekseev (RRC-KI, Russian Federation) Advanced
Fuel Cycle for Long-lived Core of Small-size Light Water Reactor of ABV Type(8.6) V. Berthou (IRI-Delft, The Netherlands), I. Slessarev, M. Salvatores (CEA-Cadarache, France)
Proposal of a Molten Salt System for Long Term Energy Production(8.7) C.C. Pain, J.L.M.A. Gomes, C.R.E. de Oliveira, M.D. Eaton, A.J.H. Goddard (Imperial College,
UK), H. van Dam, T.H.J.J. van der Hagen and D. Lathouwers (IRI-Delft, The Netherlands) A Conceptual
Fluidised Particle Bed Reactor - Application of Space-dependent Kinetics(8.9) Ch. De Raedt, B. Verboomen, Th. Aoust, H. Aït Abderrahim, E. Malambu, L.H. Baetslé (SCKCEN-Mol, Belgium) Transmutation and Incineration of MAs in LWRs, MTRs and ADSs
(8.10) Kouji Hiraiwa, Yasushi Yamamoto, Ken-ichi Yoshioka, Mitsuaki Yamaoka (Toshiba-Corp.,
Japan), Akira Inoue , Junji Mimatu (Gifu-University, Japan) BARS : BWR With Advanced Recycle
SystemWednesday, 24 October - Plenary Sessions
Miscellaneous Themes
Chairman: Kevin Hesketh
09:00 (7.1) G. Bignan, D. Rippert, P. Fougeras (CEA-Cadarache, France) The Key Role of Critical
Mock-Up Facilities for Neutronic Physics Assessment of Advanced Reactors: An Overview of
CEA/Cadarache Tools.
09:30(7.2) M. Hron, J. Uhlir (NRI-Rez, Czech Rep.) and J. Vanicek (CPC, Czech Rep.) The
SPHINX Project (Experimental Verification of Design Inputs for a Transmuter with Liquid Fuel
Based on Molten Fluorides)
10:00(7.3) M. Hugon, V. P. Bhatnagar and J. Martin Bermejo (EC-Brussels) (presented by J. Somers)
Advanced Concepts for Waste Management and Nuclear Energy Production in the EURATOM
Fifth Framework Programme
10:30
COFFEE

Panel Discussion 11:00-12:30
Chairman: Kevin Hesketh
Panelists: P. D'hondt, H. Mouney, H. Sekimoto, J. Somers, R. Sunderland, E. Sartori
Questions for Panel Discussion:
1. Is there a gap between vendors’ and utilities’ fuel research programmes designed to support operationand the advanced concept research such as that presented at this conference ? If so, what can the
research community do to narrow the gap ? In other words, does the field need to be made more
relevant to the utilities ?
2. The benefits of advanced concepts are usually in areas such as safety, proliferation resistance,
environmental impact/radiotoxic burden, strategic and so on. A major weakness is that these are “soft”
issues for which there is no agreed measure of the benefit. Are there any actions the researchcommunity could take to promote agreed metrics in these areas ?
3. What should be our strategy for partitioning and transmutation given the intractability of processing
and destroying curium ? Should there be a policy of encapsulating curium for eventual disposal ?
4. In the context of the objectives of initiatives such as Gen IV (particularly sustainability), how would
once-though fuel cycles such as those HTGRs fit it ? What role would once-through fuel cycles fit in?
12:15

Close of Meeting

26

NEA/NSC/DOC(2001)21

27