September 2007 2007 TRTR Conference U.S. Domestic Reactor Conversion Programs Eric Woolstenhulme...

September 2007

2007 TRTR Conference

U.S. Domestic Reactor Conversion Programs

Eric WoolstenhulmeDana Meyer

Background on the current U.S. Domestic Conversion Program at the INL

• Support the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative to reduce the amount HEU by converting 7 U.S. research and training reactors from HEU-to-LEU fuel by 2009

The Conversion Generally Includes:

• Revision of the facilities Safety Documents and

supporting analysis

• Fabrication of new LEU fuel

• Change-out of the reactor core

• Removal of the used HEU fuel (by INL University Fuels

Program)

Three major Reactor Conversion Program milestones have been accomplished since 2006

• The conversion of the TRIGA reactor at Texas A&M University Nuclear Science Center

The conversion of the University of Florida Training Reactor

The conversion of the Purdue University Reactor

The major entities involved are:

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• University reactor department

• Fuel and hardware fabricators

• Spent fuel receipt facilities

• SNF shipping services

• U.S. Department of Energy and their subcontractors

various branches

reactor operations, radiation protection, shipping, procurement, and etc

BWXT, CERCA, GA

SRS, INL/Idaho Nuclear Tech. and Eng. Center

NAC, STS, INL

ANL, INL

Lessons Learned Overview

Purpose: To benefit future conversion and project teams

• Conversion Activities were scored 1 to 5 on performance difficulty

– 1 (extremely challenging) / 5 (exceptional easy)

• Activity Grouping

– Project Initiation

– Conversion Proposal to the NRC

– Fuel Fabrication and Hardware

– Core Conversion

– Spent Nuclear Fuel

• Issues and Recommendations

Lessons Learned: Project Initiation

Average Score: 3.9

• Issues

– University felt that the Conversion Project Team was sometimes segregated

and was not certain that all necessary information was shared appropriately

– Was not always clear that the University’s needs were being addressed

• Recommendations

– Kick-off meetings involving all of the Conversion Project Team

– Clarify roles and expectations better

– Determine technical requirements for the activities

– Direct the universities to provide a list of individuals that will be reviewing

drawings, specifications, etc

Lessons Learned: Conversion ProposalAverage Score: 3.6

• Issues

– Due to the age and history of the reactors, changes in designs and equipment are

likely

– Over conservatism in analyses can limit reactor operations and make fabrication

difficult

• Recommendations

– Advise Universities early to recover historical documents, drawings, etc

– Involve ALL parties (e.g.: analysis, design, fabricators, and university) in ALL

conversations that will impact them directly/indirectly

– Involve the NRC in the process as soon as possible

• Observation

– The NRC discussed their issues and questions with Licensee while reviewing the

proposals. This practice eased the Request for Additional Information process.

Lessons Learned: Fuel Fabrication and HardwareAverage Score: 3.2

• Issues

– Assumptions with regard to design, fit, and function proved invalid, requiring

correction

– Trucks arriving at the universities to deliver the new LEU fuel were not what

was anticipated

– Unfamiliarity with the shipment process when returning empty containers

• Recommendations

– Verify existing equipment (drawings don’t necessarily match existing)

– Ensure the university and the shipper communicate with regard to logistics,

restrictions, tools needed, etc

– Make time early in the process to inform the university about the

requirements for return shipment

Lessons Learned: Core Conversion

Average Score: 3.4

• Issues

– Downtime maintenance created additional schedule impacts

– New hardware had to be re-machined because of lack of information

– Reactivity at intermediate points of loading had not been calculated

• Recommendations

– Schedule activities that can be performed prior to reactor loading as

soon as possible

– Pay close attention to the details of the reactors

– If needed, provide for onsite expertise to resolve startup issues and

have a detailed plan/procedure with a number of hold points

Texas A&M University Nuclear Science Center

• TRIGA conversion reactor, 1 megawatt

• Spent LEU core shipped before

conversion

• Conversion milestone accomplished on

27 September, 2006

• Final HEU SNF shipment complete

• Unirradiated HEU element removed

University of Florida Training Reactor

• Argonaut type reactor, 100

kilowatt

• Spent core shipped before conversion

• Conversion milestone accomplished on September 28, 2006

• Final partial plate assembly completed in August 2007

Purdue University Reactor

• LW moderated pool, plate fuel,1,000 watt

• Spent core to be shipped after conversion

• Conversion milestone accomplished on September 8,

2007

Our near-term projects are to:• Convert Washington State University Nuclear Radiation Center

reactor by Sept 30, 2008

• Convert Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor by Sept 30, 2008

• Convert University of Wisconsin Nuclear Reactor by Sept 30, 2009

• Convert Neutron Radiography Reactor Facility by Sept 30, 2009

2006

2007

2008

2009

TEXAS A&M

Washington State University Reactor

• TRIGA conversion reactor, 1 megawatt

• Spent core to be shipped after conversion

• Conversion Proposal submitted to NRC on 8/16/07

Oregon State University

• TRIGA Mark II, 1.1 megawatt

• Spent core to be shipped after conversion

• Conversion Proposal to be submitted to NRC 9/30

• Fuel is being fabricated

University of Wisconsin

• TRIGA conversion reactor, 1

megawatt

• Conversion Proposal to begin

in October 2008

Neutron Radiography Reactor Facility

• TRIGA conversion reactor, 1 megawatt

• Spent core to be shipped after conversion

• Safety Analysis work has begun