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

2. 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

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 A&M 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 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

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 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

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 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

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 2006 2007 20082009 TEXAS A & M

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