ICP Spent Nuclear Fuel Examination Barbara Beller for Kathleen Hain, PBS-12 FPD April 15, NSNFP Strategy Meeting
History of SNF Examination • 1998 EM-60 memo to INL and SRS directed use of technically based criteria for receipt of FRR SNF. • EM had little experience receiving FRR SNF. • Criteria were based on National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program, Foreign Research Reactor Fuel Acceptance Criteria – Failed Fuel Report. • Material control and accountability compliance requires verification of unique identifier for each SNF element. • ICP cannot readily handle individual fuel elements to examine SNF at receiving/storage facility (CPP-603). • ICP completes physical fuel examination at pre-loading and “accountability” at loading for both FRR and DRR SNF (2 trips). Tamper indicating device fixed, removed at receipt, buckets unloaded from cask. • SNF identified as posing a potential risk to the receipt facility (at unloading or in the future i.e. 2035) is canned prior to loading.
Receipt Facility Considerations Leading to Examination • Review of receipt of specific fuel against documented safety basis for fuel handling and storage at receipt facility. • Evaluation of impact of (degraded) spent fuel condition on handling and interim storage at receipt facility. • Planning and scheduling for fuel cask unloading, and handling for storage placement at receipt facility. • Evaluation of monitoring of fuel under fuel management program for interim storage at receipt facility. • Additional planning, as appropriate, for preparing fuel for ultimate disposition post-interim storage. • Source Document: Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel Return Program U.S. DOE Experience in Planning, Receipt and Transportation A Review and Lessons Learned October, 2008
Elements of SNF Examination for Dry Storage by ICP Contractor • ICP contractor is responsible for operation of CPP-603 within the approved nuclear safety authorization basis. • Required Shippers Data review and approval required. • Each SNF element is videotaped and written record of the visual inspection is completed (length, instrumentation, unusual attachments, as well as any damage). • The unique fuel identifier is verified in addition to verification completed by the reactor site fuel handlers; tied to the fuel fabrication data. • Any questions necessary for authorization basis compliance calculations are asked. (Any unexpected condition e.g. hose clamp.) • Decision is made on which elements will require canning based on storage requirements at receipt facility. • Coordinate with shipper concerning fuel position in basket.
Damaged or Compromised Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) • Normal reactor operations and fuel handling can result in damage to SNF that may cause a release of radioactive contamination or fuel handling issues at receipt facility in the future. • ICP has documented damage to the aluminum and stainless steel clad TRIGA and SNF received from Foreign Research Reactors (FRR) since 1997 and Domestic Research Reactors (DRR) since 2003: • Corrosion, cuts, bulges, dents, scratches • In addition, ICP requires canning of damaged SNF to prevent contamination of storage facilities, exposure to current and future workers and control during future characterization and packaging processes. • On-site visual examination with the use of cameras is the method used to identify SNF that should be canned (360°, full length).
Early At Reactor Examination Pros • Condition of SNF is known early enough to address any concerns. • Loading issues can be resolved. • SNF is received in CPP-603 in a shipping basket and stored in the basket. • SNF is not handled again until the basket is transferred to the future Idaho Spent Fuel Facility (TBD). • Special equipment can be identified. • Authorization basis issues can be resolved; SAR changes made and approved. • Receipt procedures can be written to account for and issues unique to this shipment. • Sufficient cans can be provided. • Coordination with shipper.
Early At Reactor Examination Cons • Expense • EM cost of travel to reactor and time at reactor. • Reactor cost to handle SNF for examination; may be paid by NE/NNSA. • Much of the work appears to be redundant. • Contract interference • NE/NNSA contracts with reactor and shipper, remember Roles and Responsibility • EM contract with receiver • Political • Examination can be perceived as questioning nuclear regulation compliance
New SNF Receipt Issue • Regulatory Requirements and framework for fuel manufacturing, reactor operation and fuel storage. • Documentation requirements are established – can data available fulfill our data needs? • Is the paperwork available a “record” prepared under an acceptable QA program? • Are the data needs different for and dependent on fuel disposition path (recycling or disposal)? • References: 1) NRC Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Interim Staff Guidance - 1, Revision 2 Classifying the Condition of Spent Nuclear Fuel for Interim Storage and Transportation Based on Function 2) IAEA-TECDOC-1593 3) FRR Spent Fuel Return Program Lessons Learned October 2008