Readiness of Current and New U.S. Reactors for MOX Fuel
North Carolina and Virginia Health Physics Societies Joint 2009 Spring MeetingNew Bern, North Carolina
13 March 2009
Andrew Sowder, Ph.D., CHPProject ManagerHLW & Spent Fuel Management Program
2© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Motivation for this Review
• Use of mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel in light water reactors is a mature technology
• Timing
– nuclear renaissance
– U.S. policy shifts
– mature technology– state of knowledge
• Pu-recycle as a bridge to other fuel cycle options
• Question: Are there knowledge gaps and technology barriers that could inhibit use of MOX in U.S. reactor fleet (current and GEN III/III+)?
3© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Substantial Existing Knowledge Base
• U.S. Government and National Labs
• Regulatory and licensing documents
• Reactor vendors• Utilities• Academia• International organizations
(IAEA, NEA)• EPRI
4© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Drivers, Constraints, and Concerns
• Regulatory environment • Energy security
• Nonproliferation
• Public opinion
• Resource utilization
• Waste management• Economics
• Technology
This review
5© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Current Context for Considering MOX
• 2000 U.S. – Russia Plutonium Disposition Agreement• 2001 National Energy Policy Development Group
• 2003 Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative
• 2005 - 2008 MOX lead-test assemblies irradiated in Catawba Unit 1
• 2006 launch of Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
• Utilities pursuing extended reactor lifetimes
• Seventeen companies/consortia pursuing licensing for > 30 new units• 2008 DOE -TVA MOU for technical exchange on advanced fuel cycles• 2008 DOE Yucca Mountain License Application, Second Repository
Report and Draft GNEP PEIS• 2009 – New U.S. administration and waste policy
• MOX as bridge between once-through and advanced fuel cycles
6© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Open Fuel Cycle
• Once-through cycle in U.S.
• Suitable for:– secure U supply
– nonproliferation credentials
– simplicity
• Poor U resource utilization
• Less than 1% of potential energy recovered
10 – 20% Unat Savings
7© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
LWR Fuel: Waste or Resource?
8© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Closed Fuel Cycles
• Fast reactor fleet required
• Complex – technical challenges yet to be addressed
• Much higher utilization of U resources
• Manifold increase in energy recovery
• Nonproliferation concerns
• Potential for reducing long-lived wastes for disposal
• Repository still required
15 – 25% Unat savings
35 – 95% Unat savings
9© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
What is MOX Fuel?
• Standard LWR fuel employs low enrichment 235U as primary fissile isotope in bulk 238U matrix (as sintered/ceramic UO2) = UOX
• Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel incorporates 239Pu as primary fissile isotope in bulk 238UO2 matrix
• All LWRs operating on UO2–based fuel eventually derive a substantial fraction of energy from 239Pu fission
10© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Plutonium Grades
• Weapons grade (WG) – derived from low burnup uranium fuel to optimize 239Pu content
• Reactor grade (RG) – recycled Pu from spent UOX fuel irradiated in an LWR at high burnup
Isotope Weapons Grade (wt%) Reactor Grade (wt%) 238Pu 0 1 4 239Pu 92 – 95 50 – 60 240Pu 5 – 7 24 27 241Pu 0 – 0.5 6 11 242Pu 0 – 0.05 5 10
11© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX vs. UOX Fuel
• Physically very similar – predominately UO2
• Neutronics are different; Pu has:– harder neutron spectrum– shorter neutron lifetimes and fewer delayed neutrons– greater σf and σtot for 239Pu– greater capture to fission ratio
• Differences greater for RG Pu than WG Pu• Use of MOX fuel results in:
– reduced effectiveness of thermal neutron absorbers (control/shutdown rods, soluble boron, poisons)
– faster core response to reactivity transients– large thermal neutron flux gradient at MOX – UOX interfaces– slower reactivity decrease with increasing burnup– potentially enhanced pressure vessel embrittlement– localized power peaking (esp. in fresh MOX)
12© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX vs. UOX Fuel (cont’d)
• Radiation protection:– fresh fuel will contain significant Pu content
– irradiated fuel will have a much higher neutron dose (238Pu, 242Cm, 244Cm) but comparable gamma
• Higher heat loads in irradiated MOX – require longer cooling times (2 – 6 x)
– greater cooling capacity in spent fuel pool
• Greater fission gas/helium release in irradiated MOX
• Higher fissile content in irradiated MOX
• Transportation of fresh MOX fuel – Cat I special nuclear material
• Additional security per recently revised 10 CFR 73
13© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX Impacts on Reactivity Control
Effect Remedy
control/shutdown rods and soluble boron exhibit less worth (as do gadolinium and xenon)
• increase soluble boron concentration or use enriched boron (PWR)
• use higher worth control/shutdown rods • use burnable absorbers • isolate MOX fuel relative to control rod
locations decreased reactivity safety margins (notably shutdown margin) with respect to transients, ΔT
• add control/shutdown rods (PWR) • use higher worth control/shutdown rods • increase soluble boron concentration or use
enriched boron (PWR) • increase soluble boron injection rate and/or
boron enrichment for standby liquid control systems
14© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Global MOX experience
• MOX use in thermal reactors considered a mature technology
• Early programs (ca. 50’s and 60’s) in the U.S., Italy, Germany, and Belgium
• Routine loading of MOX in reactors in France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, and India (with Japan to follow)
• MOX fuel loaded in 20 of 28 French 900 MWe PWRs• MOX fuel performance comparable to that of UOX• Partial MOX cores feasible in wide range of LWR designs
– both PWR and BWR designs as suitable hosts– to date, MOX experience limited to partial cores
• MOX issues can be overcome while also satisfying safety and design margins
15© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX in French 900 MW PWR Fleet
IAEA. 2007. Current Trends in Nuclear Fuel for Power Reactors. IAEA General Conference 51. Nuclear Technology Review Supplement GC(51)inf-3-att5
Num
ber
of M
OX
Fue
l Ass
embl
ies
Load
ed
16© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
MOX Irradiation in U.S. Reactors
Reactor PWR/ BWR MOX LTA Start
Total Number of Assemblies
Total Number of Fuel Rods
Vallecitos BWR 1960s -- ≥ 16 Big Rock Point BWR 1969 16 1248
Dresden-1 BWR 1969 11 103 San Onofre-1 PWR 1970 4 720 Quad Cities-1 BWR 1974 10 48
Ginna PWR 1980 4 716 Catawba-1 PWR 2005 4 full 17 x 17
assemblies
17© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
U.S. DOE Surplus Pu Disposition Program
• U.S. and Russia to meet obligations for disposition of 34 MT weapons grade Pu via irradiation in reactors
• 2005 – 2008: Duke Energy irradiates 4 lead test assemblies (LTAs) in Catawba Unit 1– LTAs manufactured in France from U.S.-origin Pu– irradiation for two 18-month cycles
– assembly growth issues NOT related to MOX
– MOX fuel performance testing considered successful
• MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility under construction at Savannah River Site, Aiken, SC
• Total estimated 1700 PWR MOX fuel assemblies over 15-years
18© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
U.S. Fleet by Vendor/Model, Size, and Lifetime
Reactor Vendor Type Units in
operation Units >750
MWe
Units in operation
beyond 2039*
Units >750 MWe in
operation beyond 2039*
Westinghouse PWR 48 39 28 28 Combustion Engineering
PWR 14 13 7
7
Babcock and Wilcox
PWR 7 7 0 0
Total PWRs 69 59 35 35
GE BWR2 BWR 2 0 0 0 GE BWR3 BWR 6 4 0 0 GE BWR4 BWR 19 17 6 6 GE BWR5 BWR 4 4 4 4 GE BWR6 BWR 4 4 4 4
Total BWRs 35 29 14 14
Total 104 88 49 49 *Assumes 60 year operating lifetime.
19© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Existing U.S. Reactors as Candidates for MOX
• Assumptions:– commercial MOX use
in U.S. no earlier than 2020
– 20 year minimum remaining lifetime
– greater flexibility in late GEN II reactors (ca. 1980)
• Result: ~ 50% of current fleet as potential candidates
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1965
1970
197
5
198
0
198
5
199
0
199
5
200
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
205
0
205
5
206
0
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Op
era
tion
al R
eac
tors
60 yr reactor lifespan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
1965
1970
197
5
198
0
198
5
199
0
199
5
200
0
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
205
0
205
5
206
0
Year
Nu
mb
er
of
Op
era
tion
al R
eac
tors
60 yr reactor lifespan
NOTE: Similar estimate from DOE: 3 Palo Verde CE System 80 PWRs + 48 other late model (ca. 1980) designs (34 PWRs + 14 BWRs) = 51 total [M. Todosow (BNL) email to P. Fink (INL), 15 October 2007]
20© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Global MOX Supply
• Existing French and UK production capacity of ~235 MTHM/yr– 100 MTHM/yr of French capacity dedicated to 20 –
900 MWe PWRs using 30% cores
• U.S. DOE MOX facility under construction ~ 70 MTHM/yr max– to support 6 – 1000 MWe PWRs with 40% MOX cores
• Planned Japanese Rokkasho facility ~130 MTHM/yr– to support 16 – 18 reactors, most with partial cores
• MOX use in the U.S. is supply limited, NOT reactor limited, for the next 20 – 30 years
21© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
GEN III/III+ Reactor Designs for U.S. Market
• Full MOX core capability reported in open literature for ABWR, AP1000, US-EPR, and US-APWR
• Construction of an ABWR at Ohma, Japan, for 100% MOX
• European Utility Requirements (EUR) explicitly call for reactor designs capable of 50% MOX cores
Generation Design Vendor Output (MWe)
Under NRC Review
NRC Design Cert.
ABWR GEH 1300 GEN III USAPWR MHI 1700 AP1000 Westinghouse 1100 USEPR Areva 1600 GEN III+ ESBWR GEH 1520
22© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Preliminary Findings – Existing Reactors
• Most if not all reactors capable of accommodating partial MOX loadings with either no or only minor modifications and operational changes
• No technical barriers identified thus far to partial MOX loading (30% or less) in at least half of existing U.S. fleet, based on review of:– DOE sponsored reviews and analysis
– International MOX experience
– LTA irradiation history in PWRs and BWRs
23© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Preliminary Findings – Existing Reactors
• Amendment of reactor license (substantial but manageable undertaking)– demonstration of fuel performance, safety margins
– re-evaluation of plant design basis
– NRC staff has expressed favorable views on MOX licensing based on European experience
• Additional reactivity control required for MOX– due to reduced control rod worth and shutdown margins– addressed through use of higher soluble boron concentrations and/or
enriched 10B, burnable absorbers, or higher worth control rods
• Plant wide changes to address:– security
– radiation protection and shielding
– increased minimum cooling periods, increased cooling capacity for spent fuel pool, spent fuel criticality
• No negative impact on return to 100% UOX cores
24© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Preliminary Findings – GEN III/III+ Reactors
• All GEN III/III+ designs should accommodate high MOX core loading (50% to full cores)
• 50% MOX core loading target per European Utility Requirements
• Core loadings of 50% or greater generally require MOX-specific design
• Full MOX core capacity reported for ABWR, AP1000, US-EPR, US-APWR
• Limited information on specific design capabilities with respect to MOX loading
• Limited information on differences between designs for U.S. and international markets
• MOX use in new reactors may be restricted due to plant specific design aspects (e.g., spent fuel pool capacity)
25© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
26© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Backup Slides
27© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Waste Management Perspective
• Actinides are primary long-term risk drivers for disposal of HLW and SNF
• Transmutation of actinides would simplify disposal– Pu– Minor actinides: Np, Am, Cm
1.00E-08
1.00E-07
1.00E-06
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05 1.0E+06
Time
Mean Dosemrem/y
DoseTc-99
DoseI-129
DoseNp-237
DoseU-233
DoseTh-229
DosePu-239
DoseU-235
DoseU-238
DoseU-234
DoseTh-230
DosePu-240
DoseU-236
Total
28© 2009 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Costs: Fuel Cycle Costs a Function of Uranium and PUREX Reprocessing Unit Costs*
*EPRI, 2009. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Comparison Between Once-Through and Plutonium Single-Recycling in Pressurized Water Reactors. [Report 1018575, February 2009].
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
$104 $208 $312 $416 $520
Uranium Unit Cost ($/kgU)
Fu
el C
ycle
Co
st (
mill
s/kw
he)
FC1: Once-Through FC2: Purex $500/kgHM FC2: Purex $750/kgHM
FC2: Purex $1000/kgHM FC2: Purex $1250/kgHM FC2: Purex $1500/kgHM