REVIEW OF DOE’S NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Committee on Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
REVIEW OF DOE’S NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Committee on Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
The NaTioNal academies Press 500 Fifth street, N.W. Washington, dc 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report and the study on which it is based were supported by Contract No. DE-AT01-06NE64158 (Task Order No. 15) from the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organiza- tions or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-11124-9 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-11124-2 Available in limited supply from Additional copies available for sale from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Keck W934 Washington, DC 20055 Washington, DC 20001 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 (in the 202-334-3344 Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its con- gressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advis- ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
commiTTee oN reVieW oF doe’s NUclear eNerGY research aNd deVeloPmeNT ProGram ROBERT FRI, Chair, Resources for the Future R. STEPHEN BERRY, NAS,1 University of Chicago DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, NAE,2 MPR Associates, Inc. GREGORY R. CHOPPIN, Florida State University MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin JAMES R. CURTISS, ESQ., Winston and Strawn LLP JAMES W. DALLY, NAE, University of Maryland VICTOR GILINSKY, Independent Consultant MUJID S. KAZIMI, Massachusetts Institute of Technology SALOMON LEVY, NAE, Levy & Associates ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, George Mason University REGIS A. MATZIE, Westinghouse Electric Company WARREN F. MILLER, JR., NAE, Texas A&M University DAVID L. MORRISON, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (retired) PER F. PETERSON, University of California, Berkeley GEOFFREY S. ROTHWELL, Stanford University JOHN J. TAYLOR, NAE, Consultant Project staff JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director, BEES MARTIN OFFUT, Responsible Staff Officer and Senior Program Officer (until March 2007) MATTHEW T. BOWEN, Responsible Staff Officer and Senior Program Associate ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate (until May 2007) LaNITA JONES, Program Associate 1 NAS, National Academy of Sciences. 2 NAE, National Academy of Engineering. 

OCR for page R1
Board oN eNerGY aNd eNViroNmeNTal sYsTems DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, NAE,1 Chair, MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia ROBERT W. FRI, Vice Chair, Resources for the Future (senior fellow emeritus), Washington, D.C. RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana ALLEN J. BARD, NAS,2 University of Texas, Austin ANDREW BROWN, JR., NAE, Delphi Corporation, West Lafayette, Indiana MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology PHILIP R. CLARK, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired), Boonton, New Jersey (term ended July 31, 2007) MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison PAUL DECOTIS, New York State Energy and Research Development Authority, Albany E. LINN DRAPER, JR., NAE, American Electric Power, Inc. (emeritus), Austin, Texas CHARLES GOODMAN, Southern Company, Birmingham, Alabama DAVID G. HAWKINS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. JAMES MARKOWSKY, NAE, Consultant, North Falmouth, Massachusetts DAVID K. OWENS, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Ann Arbor, Michigan TONY PROPHET, Carrier Corporation, Farmington, Connecticut (term ended July 31, 2007) MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Moorestown, New Jersey MAXINE SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, California PHILIP R. SHARP, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (term ended July 31, 2007) SCOTT W. TINKER, University of Texas, Austin staff JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Director DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer JOHN HOLMES, Senior Program Officer MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer (until March 2007) MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer MATTHEW T. BOWEN, Senior Program Associate DANA CAINES, Financial Associate PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate (until May 2007) LaNITA JONES, Program Associate KATHERINE BITTNER, Senior Project Assistant JENNIFER BUTLER, Financial Assistant 1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering 2 NAS, National Academy of Sciences i

OCR for page R1
Preface In January 2005, the FY 2006 President’s Budget Request been prepared changed significantly between the writing of asked for funds to be set aside for a review by the National the statement of task and the start of the committee’s work. Academy of Sciences of the nuclear energy research pro- Second, the dominant new program, GNEP, lacked the tech- grams and budget at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). nical documentation, program plans, and program manage- Following passage of the FY 2006 congressional budget, the ment organization that would ordinarily form the basis for an National Research Council (NRC) developed a statement of evaluation of program content and budget priorities. Despite task (see Appendix F) for a “comprehensive, independent these difficulties, the committee decided that the issues sur- evaluation of the goals and plans of the office of Nuclear rounding the design and technical approach of the GNEP Energy (NE) at DOE, and processes for establishing program program were sufficiently controversial that they could not priorities and oversight (including the method for determin- be ignored in its review. I commend my colleagues on the ing the relative allocation of budgetary resources).” The committee for taking this stand and thank them for being NRC established a committee to carry out the project, but willing to deal with the resulting frustrations of crafting a the committee did not meet until August 24, 2006—over 18 balanced evaluation of GNEP in the absence of information months after the request for funds for the study. that would normally be available. During that interim period, DOE’s nuclear research I wish to thank all of the committee members for the program changed significantly with the emergence in early exceptional knowledge and patience they brought to this 2006 of a major programmatic initiative—the Global Nuclear assignment. Our work probably required more of these Energy Partnership (GNEP). If executed as envisioned by its qualities than any of us expected when we set out on this advocates, the GNEP program would result in the construc- task. The support we received from the NRC staff certainly tion of commercial-scale facilities for spent fuel reprocess- met the high standards I have come to expect of them. My ing and disposal by consuming the resultant plutonium and appreciation especially goes to Martin Offutt, Matt Bowen, minor actinides together in advanced burner reactors, thereby and Jim Zucchetto. Panola Golson once again made the ad- reducing the radioactive burden on the waste repository. The ministrative support both effective and unobtrusive. budgetary implications of this new program were very sub- stantial; if appropriated, the President’s Budget Request for Robert W. Fri FY 2008 would more than double the Office of Nuclear En- Chair ergy research and development budget from its FY 2006 ap- Committee on Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy propriations level, mostly as a result of the GNEP program. Research and Development Program These developments created two issues for the commit- tee. First, the program for which the statement of task had ii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
acknowledgments The Committee on Review of the DOE’s Nuclear Energy tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Research and Development Program is grateful to the many Report Review Committee. The purpose of the independent individuals who contributed their time and effort to the Na- review is to provide candid and critical comments that will tional Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) study. assist the institution in making its published report as sound The presentations at committee meetings provided valuable as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional information and insights. The committee thanks the follow- standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the ing individuals who provided briefings: study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative Jim Bresee, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their Richard Chandler, Office of Management and Budget, review of this report: George Davis, Westinghouse, John Deutch, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Ahearne, NAE, Sigma Xi, Marvin Fertel, Nuclear Energy Institute, Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest, Timothy A. Frazier, DOE, Philip R. Clark, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired), Ray Ganthner, AREVA, E. Linn Draper, Jr., NAE, American Electric Power, Inc. Eugene Grecheck, Dominion Energy, Inc., (emeritus), Susan L. Harlow, DOE, Steve Fetter, University of Maryland, Dave Hill, Idaho National Laboratory, Richard Garwin, NAS, NAE, IOM, Council on Foreign R. Shane Johnson, DOE, Relations, Rick Kingston, GE, Richard Meserve, NAE, Carnegie Institution, Dale Klein, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kenneth Peddicord, The Texas A&M University System, Marilyn Kray, Exelon/NuStart, Neil Siegel, NAE, Northrop Grumman Mission Sys- Paul Lisowski, DOE, tems, and Owen Lowe, DOE, Raymond G. Wymer, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Albert Machiels, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), (retired). Kathryn McCarthy, Idaho National Laboratory, John C. Miller, DOE, Although the reviewers listed above have provided many Tom Miller, DOE, constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked Dave Modeen, EPRI, to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they Jim Reinsch, Bechtel, see the final draft of the report before its release. The review Carl Sink, DOE, of this report was overseen by Chris Whipple of ENVIRON Rebecca Smith-Kevern, DOE, International Corporation. Appointed by the National Re- Dennis Spurgeon, DOE, search Council, he was responsible for making certain that John Stamos, DOE, an independent examination of this report was carried out in Joe Turnage, Constellation Energy/UniStar, and accordance with institutional procedures and that all review Gary Vine, EPRI. comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals committee and the institution. chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 9 Evolving Project Scope, 10 The Committee’s Approach to Evaluation, 11 The Committee’s Perspective on the NE Research Program, 12 References, 13 2 NUCLEAR POWER 2010 14 Background, 14 Overall Program Description, 15 Goals, Timetables, and Progress, 22 Findings and Recommendations, 28 References, 29 3 GENERATION IV AND NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE PROGRAMS 31 Background, 31 Overall Program Description, 31 Next-Generation Nuclear Plant, 33 Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, 40 Other Generation IV Reactor Nuclear Energy Systems, 43 Findings and Recommendations, 45 References, 46 4 ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE AND GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY 47 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS Background, 47 Overall Program Description, 49 Analysis and Evaluation of the Proposed GNEP Program, 51 Findings and Recommendations, 56 References, 57 5 IDAHO NATIONAL LABORATORY 58 Background, 58 Facility Issues at INL, 58 Assessment of the Ten-Year Plan, 61 Findings and Recommendations, 63 References, 65 xi

OCR for page R1
xii CONTENTS 6 PROGRAM PRIORITIES, BALANCE, AND OVERSIGHT 66 Program Priorities, 66 Program Balance, 67 Program Oversight, 67 APPENDIXES A Minority Opinion: Dissenting Statement of Gilinsky and Macfarlane 73 B Minority Opinion: An Alternative to Technology Proposed for GNEP, 77 Offered by Levy, Kazimi, and Dally C Biographical Sketches for Committee Members 78 D Acronyms 83 E Presentations and Committee Meetings 85 F Statement of Task 87

OCR for page R1
Tables and Figures TaBles S-1 Relative Priorities of NE R&D Programs and INL, 7 1-1 Office of Nuclear Energy Budget History FY 2003 to FY 2008, 11 2-1 New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Project Milestones, 17 3-1 End Points for Viability Phase and Performance Phase R&D, as Defined in the Generation IV Technology Roadmap, 33 5-1 Comparison of Multipurpose Laboratory Infrastructure Conditions and Uses, 61 5-2 FY 2007 Request for the Idaho Facilities Management Account, 62 5-3 FY 2007 Budget for the Idaho National Laboratory, 63 5-4 Reported FY 2006 Overall Laboratory Costs and LDRD Costs at Participating DOE Laboratories, 63 6-1 Relative Priorities of NE R&D Programs and INL, 68 6-2 Budget Recommendations for NE R&D Programs and INL, 69 FiGUres 5-1 Idaho National Laboratory strategy map, 60 A-1 GWd/MTIHM spent PWR fuel actinide and fission product decay heat, 74 BoX 6-1 University Programs, 68 xiii

OCR for page R1