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