U.S. Domestic Reactor Conversion Programs

1
U.S. Domestic Reactor Conversion Programs

• Eric Woolstenhulme
• Dana Meyer

2007 TRTR Conference
September 2007
2
Background on the current U.S. Domestic
Conversion Program at the INL

• Support the National Nuclear Security
  Administrations 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

3
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)

4
Three major Reactor Conversion Program milestones
have been accomplished since 2006

• The conversion of the TRIGA reactor at Texas AM
  University Nuclear Science Center
• The conversion of the University of Florida
  Training Reactor
• The conversion of the Purdue University Reactor

5
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
6
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

7
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 Universitys 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

8
Lessons Learned Conversion Proposal

• Average 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.

9
Lessons Learned Fuel Fabrication and Hardware

• Average 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 dont
  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

10
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

11
Texas AM 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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
University of Wisconsin

• TRIGA conversion reactor, 1 megawatt
• Conversion Proposal to begin in October 2008

18
Neutron Radiography Reactor Facility

• TRIGA conversion reactor, 1 megawatt
• Spent core to be shipped after conversion
• Safety Analysis work has begun