9th NEA Information Exch. Meeting on Actinide and Fission Product P&T,Nimes, France, 25-28 September 2006

“Improved Resources Utilisation, Waste
Minimisation and Proliferation Resistance in aRegional Context”

M. Salvatores (ANL, USA and CEA-Cadarache, France),
L. Boucher (CEA-Cadarache, France)OUTLINE¾ „Regional approaches“ to the fuel cycle have been proposed,even before El Baradei proposal, mostly for non proliferation
reasons.
9 Some examples¾ We developed an original „regional approach“ involving twoEuropean countries with a double purpose:• To support the deployment of ADS-based wastetransmutation.
• To support the deployment of Gen-IV reactors
9 Some results will be recalled¾ A further application: a “User/Supplier” scenario¾ A new development: a more comprehensive study foreseen in theframe of a Coordination Action of the EU

Production and transregional flows of fresh andspent nuclear fuel in 2050,
t/year2000 GWt(e)A first example of a Regional Approach to the FuelCycle with P/TDifferent countries can envisage different policies. According to thestrategy, specific fuel cycle facilities have to be deployed.

Some of these facilities are similar, even if conceived for different
strategies.

The multiplication of such facilities is unlikely, both for non-proliferation andeconomic reasonsCan a regional (i.e. with some shared installations and combinedresources) approach help?

As an example, in a previous study we considered the case of:¾A country « A », which has a spent fuel legacy, no reprocessing
installations and no decision yet on final repository.
¾A country « B », which has an operating power reactor fleet with a waste
minimisation objective, has reprocessing capabilities, but looks for an
optimisation of resources and investments.

This scenario
considers the
deployment of anumber of ADS sharedby the two countries.
The ADS will use thePlutonium of thecountry A and willtransmute the minor
actinides of bothcountry A and B

Scenario 1
COUNTRY A

COUNTRY B

Repository
LossesSpent fuelstorage

The Plutonium of thecountry B is
continuously recycled
in PWRs.
The main objective of
this scenario is todecrease the stock ofspent fuel of country A
down to ~0 at the endof the century, and tostabilize both Pu andMA inventories ofcountry B.

REGIONAL FACILITIES

Reprocessing andblending

PuA + MA A

PuA + MA A + MA B

Dedicated fuelFabrication
ModularADS

Burn-out of Pu andMA stocks

Dry reproces.
of ded. fuelLossesPuB + MA B

PuB

Nuclear power
fleet:UOX-LWRs
MOX-LWRs withmultirecycling

Pu-only management in
LWRs. MA sent to second
stratum of fuel cycle

ADS deployment schedule for Transmutation of country A SNF

ADS deployment schedule for Transmutation of country B Minor Actinides

16 ADS needed forCountry B in isolation

8+3 ADS needed forCountry A in isolation

20 ADS needed for a regional
Country A+B strategy
ADS deployment schedule for country A and B

Scenario 2This scenario considers the deployment of fast reactors in country B. These fast reactors
are deployed with the Plutonium of the two countries and recycle all the minor actinides.
The main objective of this scenario is to decrease the stock of spent fuel of country A
down to 0 at the end of the century and to introduce Gen-IV fast reactors in country B,starting, e.g., in 2035.

COUNTRY A

REGIONAL FACILITIESCOUNTRY B

Repository
LossesSPENT
FUEL
STORAGE(Pu+MA)A

Reprocessing(Pu+MA)B(Pu+MA)A (Pu+MA)B

Fuel fabrication

FR (e.g. withhomogeneous
TRU fuel)

350
300
250

Pu B+stock A
Pu B

tons

200

Available Pu for GFR fuelpins fabrication

150
100

Need for extra Pu stocks if
Country B alone

500
2070
-50

2080

2090

2100

2110

2120

2130

2140

2150

6-100years
5
MA stocks A+B
4

MA (Np+Am+Cm)
content in the initialloading (%)

MA stock B

321Increase in content is insignificant
02030

2050

2070

2090
years

2110

2130

2150

Another possible scenario: a „User/Supplier“ Scenario:- Countries „A“ e.g. with small grid systems
Small (~50 MWe) reactors as transportable „cartridges“
e.g. SMFR with ~30 years lifetime, passive safety, compact androbust technology, high proliferation resistance- Country B with reprocessing and fuel fabrication capabilities, with its
own nuclear power fleet

Objective: quantify fabrication/reprocessing/material transport needs,constraints etc.

Countries
A1,A2,..Ai

Regional
FacilitiesCountry B

UOX fuel

Reprocessing:

Cartridge fuelSpent UOX fuelGen-IIIUOX-PWR

Spent TRU fuelGen-IV FRTRU fuel

Fabrication:
Spent cartridge fuelRegional„User/ Supplier“
Scenario-UOX fuel-TRU fuel-„Cartridge“
fuel
WastesSMFR„Cartridge“
Reactors

U and TRU
recoveryInterim storage
Geologicalstorage

TRU fuelCountries
A1,A2,..Ai

Regional Facilities

Country B

Reprocessing:
3100 tons
Spent UOX fuel

SMFR
20x50=1 GWe

SMFR fuel12.5 % Pu, 1.9% MA
Spent SMFR fuelFabrication:
276 tons
Reprocessing:
276 tons

WastesFabrication:
190 tons

Regional„User/ Supplier“
ScenarioInterim Storage
Spent fuels
UOX-PWR

Interim storage
Geological storage

GEN IV fuelGen-IV GFR
10 fuel reloads
18.3 % Pu, 2.4% MA

The data of the previous scheme correspond to the following hypothesis:
9PWR UOX (BU 50GWd/t, 10y cooling) in country B
920 SMFRs adapted to Pu+MA fuel, 30y operation in countries A
9After 30y, the fuels are sent back for reprocessing and used incountry B for Gen-IV reactors



Further analysis, e.g. to establish the rate of penetration of the SMFRs,
would need specification of the policy of country B:
9If country B stores irradiated UOX fuel (e.g. USA), the 3100t UOX
needed will be available at any time.
9If country B makes reprocessing and use of Pu (e.g. France), it
should be worked out how and when the UOX could be „diverted“and made available.

The data allow to figure out the size of the reprocessing and fabrication
facilities, according to the SMFRs penetration rate foreseen.

The reprocessing as shown in the scheme, considers not-separatedTRU. Other schemes can be envisaged.

A tool for scenario studies : COSI
 Facilities of the fuel cycle: mines, enrichment, fabrication facilities, reactors,
reprocessing facilities, stockpiles, waste storage, Input data for the simulation: energy demand, fuel and nuclear materials
requirements
 Transfers of nuclear materials ( thin black arrows),
 Change in isotopic composition of materials using physical modelling (full redcircles)
ENERGYFABRICATIONPLANTSINTERIM
STORAGEUOX, MOX,
MOX UE,U free,Particles,Targets

REACTORSUOX

PWR, FNR, HTR,BWR, ADS, ….

MOX
MOX UEU freeTargets
STORAGE
WastesA, B, C

MATERIALS
nat. USWUMATERIALSPu
ENRICHMENT
PLANTS
Diffusion
Centrifugation
Avlis

PROCESSING
PLANTS
Dilution,PARTITIONING
Partitioning

URTNpdep. UAmCmCycle
Needs
Physical models

REGIONAL SCENARIO STUDIES ARE NOW EXTENDED TO A WIDEREUROPEAN CONTEXT, IN THE FRAME OF A COORDINATION ACTION OFTHE 6th FRAMEWORK PROGRAM OF THE EU (PATEROS)
1) Objectives
A regional approach at the European level should help to outline a roadmap toimplement P&T : how to to share facilities and fuel inventories to optimise the useof resources and investments in an enhanced proliferation-resistant environment.
2) Hypotheses concerning the regional scenario:
The scenarios will consider several groups of countries:
Group A is in a phase out (or stagnant) scenario for nuclear energy
and has to manage his spent fuel, and especially the Plutonium andthe minor actinides.
Group B is in a continuation scenario for the nuclear energy and has
to optimise his resources in Plutonium for the future deployment of fastreactors or ADS.
Group C, after stagnation, envisages a nuclear “renaissance”
Group D, initially with no NPP, decide to go nuclear
Different scenarios will be studied and are being defined. Examples being
examined:1- Scenarios which consider the deployment of a group of ADS
shared by several countries:¾ The ADS will use the Minor Actinides of the group B and willtransmute the TRU of the other groups.
¾ The Plutonium of the group B is mono- or continuously recycled inPWRs.
¾ The main objective of these scenarios is to decrease the stock ofspent fuel of countries A and C down to 0 at the end of the century
and to stabilize/decrease the MA stocks of group B.
The results of the study will be:¾ Pace of deployment and the number of ADS necessary to eliminate
the stock of spent fuel of group A at the end of the century;¾ Fuel cycle facilities needed and time horizon for deployment;
masses and heat load in a repository.

2- Scenarios which consider the deployment of fast reactors in group
B countries:
Fast reactors are deployed with the Plutonium of all groups ofcountries and recycle all the minor actinides.
The main objectives of this scenario are:
¾ to decrease the stock of spent fuel of countries A and C down to 0 at
the end of the century and¾ to introduce Gen-IV fast reactors in group B, starting e.g. in 2035.
The results of the study will be:¾ Number and feasibility (e.g. allowable MA content) of fast reactors tobe deployed in countries B¾ Number and characteristics of the fuel cycle facilities;¾ Masses and heat load in a shared repository.

3- Scenarios where countries of group C (and/or D) decide, after acertain period of time, to restart nuclear energy with fast reactors which
recycle all their own TRU.
Variants can be envisaged, according to the policy of Group B, e.g.
¾ Mono-recycling of Pu and successive use of fast reactors or¾ Use of fast reactors at an early date.
The spent fuel of the other countries of group A is used to facilitate thedeployment of fast reactors in group C.
The results of the scenario study will be:¾ Maximum level of electricity production achievable at equilibrium forthe group C. This result will depend on the amount of Plutonium
available and on the pace of deployment of the Fast reactors.
¾ Fuel cycle facilities characteristics and parameters related to therepository will be obtained.

At present , six countries have made available theirspent fuel inventories and isotopic compositions (atseveral dates):
Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
The inventory of the countries of Group “A” (Belgium,Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland) will be in ~2020:~300t Pu and ~35t MA
Scenarios are presently being discussed. Hypotheses onparameters such as energy demand, cooling times etc.
and on characteristics such as type of fast reactor andADS etc., will be agreed shortly.
Preliminary results (mostly obtained with the COSI code)are expected at the end of 2007.

Conclusions¾ Regional approaches to the nuclear fuel cycles have been
proposed in various frameworks.
¾ In the case of Europe, it is interesting to develop such
scenarios to investigate opportunities for enhanced
collaboration, in particular in the perspective of advanced
fuel cycles.
¾ First results have been obtained, which confirm thepotential interest of regional approaches to the fuel cycle.
¾ More results are expected in the very near future in theframe of a European Coordination Action for a Roadmap
to develop P&T (PATEROS).
¾ However, to make these scenarios more realistic, anumber of complex institutional (e.g. shared repository)
and practical (e.g. material transports) issues should betackled and discussed in depth.

Back-upScenario 2:
This scenario considers the deployment of fast reactors in Group B countries. These
fast reactors are deployed with the Plutonium of the two groups and recycle all the minor
actinides.
The main objective of this scenario is to decrease the stock of spent fuel of countries A
down to 0 at the end of the century and to introduce Gen-IV fast reactors in group B,starting, e.g., in 2035.
COUNTRY A

REGIONAL FACILITIESCOUNTRY B
GEN-IV fleet:Non-separated TRU
reprocessing.
Fuel fabrication

PuA+PuB+MAA+MABa)

Spent fuelstorage

PuA + MAAb)(PuB+MAB)or:
TRU reprocessing –ABA
B
Pu and MA kept (Pu +Pu )+(MA +MA )Pu fuelseparated. Fuel andMA targets(PuB+MAB)
MA targetsfabrication

Losses + MA irradiated targetsc)

TRU reprocessing
Fuel fabrication
MA vitrification
Losses + MA

Burn-out of Pu andMA stocks« Homogeneous »TRU fuelRepository

or:(PuA+PuB)(PuB+MAB)

Pu – only
recycling

Flexible Pu management
and minimisation of MA
sent to repository