Such differences impact the degree to which  GNEP’s objectives would be addressed—for example, by the degree to  which recycling of spent nuclear fuel would extend the technical capacity  of a geologic repository to accommodate the remaining high-level  radioactive waste (or, conversely, by the number of geologic repositories  needed to dispose of the waste). The advanced technologies would also  mitigate proliferation risks relative to existing technologies. However, the  engineering-scale approach lacked industry participation, potentially  reducing the prospects for eventual commercialization of advanced  technologies. Furthermore, the approach included building an engineering- scale reprocessing plant before conducting R&D that could help determine  the plant’s design requirements. Advanced Recycling Technologies Envisioned under DOE’s Original Approach to GNEP Pose Lower Proliferation Risks Than Existing Recycling Technologies

While advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel would pose a  greater risk of proliferation in comparison with direct disposal in a  geologic repository, they would reduce the risk of proliferation relative to  existing reprocessing technologies that separate out plutonium. Separation of cesium and strontium would nonetheless create waste  management challenges while also increasing the cost and complexity of a  reprocessing plant. The R&D Facility and Advanced Reactor Would Enable DOE to Develop the Advanced Recycling Technologies Envisioned under Its Original Approach to GNEP

Under DOE’s original approach to GNEP, the R&D facility and fast reactor  would enable the DOE national laboratories to increase the maturity of  advanced recycling technologies and to conduct the required R&D that  existing DOE facilities have limited capability to support. DOE’s Accelerated Approach Would Likely Rely on Technologies That Fall Short of Meeting GNEP’s Objectives

Two of the four industry consortia that DOE has funded under its  accelerated approach to GNEP have proposed using unproven evolutions  of current technologies—particularly the recycling of MOX fuel in existing  reactors—that would reduce waste and mitigate proliferation risks to a  much lesser degree than anticipated from the advanced technologies  envisioned under DOE’s original approach. In contrast, the other two  consortia proposed technologies that would address GNEP’s waste  reduction and nonproliferation objectives; however, the technologies are  not mature enough for commercial deployment and would therefore not  allow DOE to accelerate design and construction of commercial-scale  facilities. Under any of the proposals, DOE is unlikely to meet its goal of  deploying the facilities in a way that will not require a large amount of  government funding. DOE officials recognize these limitations and instead  point to other benefits of its accelerated approach. Two Other Industry Consortia Proposed to Address GNEP’s Objectives by Using Technologies That Are Not Mature Enough for Commercial Deployment

DOE would not be able to accelerate deployment of commercial-scale  facilities using technologies proposed by the remaining two industry  consortia that received DOE funding. As explained in the GNEP strategic  plan, one of DOE’s goals in working with industry is to avoid the need for  engineering-scale facilities and to increase the speed of arriving at a  commercially operated system of prototype recycling facilities. While the GNEP strategic plan suggests that such facilities  would need little government financial support, industry proposals suggest  the opposite. If DOE decides to pursue design and construction of engineering-scale  facilities for demonstrating advanced technologies, we further recommend  that the Secretary of Energy take the following two actions:    Revise the schedule for an engineering-scale reprocessing plant so that the  plant is built after an R&D facility and advanced reactor have conducted  sufficient testing and development of recycled fuel to ensure that the  output of the reprocessing plant can be fabricated into recycled fuel and  used in an advanced reactor. Our  report acknowledges that such a MOX program could allow DOE to begin  recycling spent fuel sooner and on a larger scale than more advanced but  less mature technologies. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To evaluate the Department of Energy’s (DOE) original engineering-scale  approach to implementing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP),  we analyzed (1) how DOE had selected the advanced spent nuclear fuel  recycling technologies on which to focus its research and development  (R&D), (2) the department’s assessment of the maturity of those  technologies, and (3) the plan for developing them:    We analyzed DOE’s selection of advanced technologies by reviewing the  department’s annual Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative comparison reports,  which assess alternative recycling technologies against waste reduction,  nonproliferation, and other criteria.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to build facilities to begin recycling the nation's commercial spent nuclear fuel. GNEP's objectives include reducing radioactive waste disposed of in a geologic repository and mitigating the nuclear proliferation risks of existing recycling technologies. DOE originally planned a small engineering-scale demonstration of advanced recycling technologies being developed by DOE national laboratories. While DOE has not ruled out this approach, the current GNEP strategic plan favors working with industry to demonstrate the latest commercially available technology in full-scale facilities and to do so in a way that will attract industry investment. DOE has funded four industry groups to prepare proposals for full-scale facilities. DOE officials expect the Secretary of Energy to decide on an approach to GNEP by the end of 2008. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOE would address GNEP's objectives under (1) its original engineering-scale approach and (2) the accelerated approach to building full-scale facilities. GAO analyzed DOE plans and industry proposals and interviewed DOE and industry officials concerning the pros and cons of both approaches.

What GAO Found

DOE's original approach of building engineering-scale facilities would meet GNEP's objectives if the advanced technologies on which it focused can be successfully developed and commercialized. The advanced technologies would reduce waste to a greater degree than existing technologies by recycling radioactive material that a geologic repository has limited capacity to accommodate. The advanced technologies would also mitigate proliferation risks relative to existing technologies by increasing the difficulty of theft or diversion of weapons-usable nuclear material from recycling facilities. Nonetheless, DOE's engineering-scale approach had two shortcomings. First, it lacked industry participation, potentially reducing the prospects for eventual commercialization of the technologies. In particular, the approach included some technologies that may introduce unnecessary costs and technical challenges while creating waste management challenges; industry representatives have questioned whether such technologies could be commercialized. Second, DOE's schedule called for building one of the recycling facilities (a reprocessing plant for separating reusable materials from spent nuclear fuel and fabricating recycled fuel) before conducting R&D on recycled fuel that would help determine the plant's design requirements. This schedule unnecessarily increased the risk that the spent fuel would be separated in a form that cannot be recycled. The other two facilities DOE had planned to build (an advanced reactor for using recycled fuel and an R&D facility) would allow DOE to conduct R&D that existing DOE facilities have limited capability to support. DOE's accelerated approach of building full-scale facilities would likely require using unproven evolutions of existing technologies that would reduce radioactive waste and mitigate proliferation risks to a much lesser degree than anticipated from more advanced technologies. Two of the four industry groups that have received funding under GNEP proposed evolutionary technologies for recycling spent fuel in existing reactors even though the GNEP strategic plan ruled out such technologies. While the evolutionary technologies could allow DOE to begin recycling a large amount of spent fuel sooner than under its original approach, fully meeting GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives would require a later transition to more advanced technologies. Two other industry groups proposed technologies that would address GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives by using technologies that are not mature enough to allow DOE to accelerate construction of full-scale recycling facilities. Under any of the proposals, DOE is unlikely to attract enough industry investment to avoid the need for a large amount of government funding for full-scale facilities. For example, the industry groups have proposed that DOE fund an advanced reactor, which DOE and industry officials expect would at least initially be more expensive than existing reactors to build and operate and thus not be commercially competitive. DOE acknowledges the limitations of its accelerated approach but cites other benefits, such as the potential to exert more immediate international influence on nonproliferation issues.