• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

mothball

FFTF restoration would provide the fastest, most efficient path to fast spectrum neutron testing

February 28, 2017 By Rod Adams

FFTF during operational period.

If a U.S.-based researcher or reactor designer needs to irradiate fuel or material with fast neutrons for testing, their current options are extremely limited. No domestic test facility can provide enough fast neutrons to do anything more than slowly irradiate a small quantity of tiny samples.

Anything more requires the full cooperation of either Russia or China. It doesn’t take too much expertise or imagination to realize both of those options are difficult, expensive and loaded with risk in terms of schedule, intellectual property protection, export control limitations and test conditions.

Lack of a facility hasn’t stopped people from recognizing that fast reactors have sufficient attractions to make them worth a considerable effort. Well resourced teams like Bill Gates’s TerraPower that are deeply interested in fast reactors have spent the money and taken the risks associated with performing tests in available facilities.

Mission and requirements for fast neutron testing

Last summer, John Kotek, in his role as the Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Energy tasked the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee with evaluating the mission and requirements for a facility that could provide a domestic source of enough fast neutrons to support the testing that will be needed to design and license fast reactors here.

The committee completed its work in December and produced a draft report. At the recent Advanced Reactor Technical Summit, Dr. Al Sattelberger, the chairman of the NEAC and a participant in the evaluation effort, described the document and its conclusions.

The financially unconstrained conclusion of the group of evaluators, most with long experience in the DOE’s National Lab complex, is that the U.S. needs a new test reactor. The report includes a set of capabilities that the new facility should have.

There is no design effort in progress, no site identified, and no money in the budget for such a facility.

I was in the audience and took the opportunity to ask the obvious question. “The U.S. owns something called the Fast Flux Test Facility. Did your committee consider restoring the FFTF?”

Dr. Sattelberger, who had introduced himself as a chemist among mostly nuclear engineers, responded as follows.

“I think that’s been studied up one end and down the other…. e facility went critical 35 years ago, 1980ish, so it’s actually been a long time since we built something. That reactor did not supply electrons to the grid, maybe one of its shortcomings.”

“But I’ve heard a number of times in the course of this afternoon about how much new technology has been developed over the last 20 years that can be brought to bear, and I think there’s a whole generation of students and engineers that would like to take a crack at building that next generation fast test reactor.”

Reuse, restore, repair and repurpose

Granting that Dr. Sattelberger is an advisor and not a representative of the Department of Energy, his response was still troubling. It was roughly equivalent to the response of a privileged teenager who says he wants mobility but then holds out for a dream car with options that haven’t been invented yet as a preferred path over fixing up the classic Cadillac loaded with all of the available options that is gathering dust in Grandma’s garage.

His more impatient and practical sister might decide to go kick the tires on the Cadillac, find out what it would take to restore the vehicle to a like-new condition and imagine its nearer term potential and value.

Dr. Sattelberger was right to note that there have been numerous studies done evaluating the option of using the FFTF for its designed purpose. One of the most comprehensive studies was completed in April 2007 by the Columbia Basin Consulting Group (CBCG) for the Tri-City Industrial Development Council.

That study – Siting Study For Hanford Advanced Fuels Test & Research Center – was funded by DOE as part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program.

The evaluators were particularly well-suited to the task; several of the consultants were, at the time, relatively recently retired engineers and operators from the Energy Department who had deep experience at the FFTF during its operational lifetime and its subsequent deactivation.

Bill Stokes, still with CBCG, led that study effort and shared a copy of the report. He emphasized the talent of the crew who did the evaluation and stated that they were not motivated by self interest; they were beyond the point of needing a job.

The 116 page document provides a detailed description of an amazing facility provided with the kinds of capabilities affordable at a time when developing fast reactors was a national priority. Though some dismiss the FFTF as old, it is about 15 to 20 years newer than most of the other test reactors in the U.S. and only has about ten years worth of operational wear.

It has largely been protected from any permanent damage. Fortunately, Grandma never got around to investing the money that destruction and cleanup of her “old” Cadillac would have required.

Here is the pithy concluding statement from the report:

“In conclusion, the FFTF could be ready to pull rods for transmutation or advanced fuels testing in 60 to 66 months at a cost of $500 million. If a decision were made in 2008 to change the mission to the prototype Advanced Recycle Reactor, the facility could be modified with a power generator and be in commercial power operation in 48 months from the decision to proceed at a total facility reactivation and modification cost of approximately $750 million.”

Those numbers included a 20% contingency. Stokes said that very little has changed at the site during the past 10 years, though the numbers will probably need some revision.

Real world experience opportunity

There are more than enough opportunities for young and midlevel engineers and scientists to get involved in pie-in-the-sky design efforts to develop a new digital reactor. [That is my term for what Rickover would have called a “paper reactor” in his less electronic era.]

The FFTF is an existing facility with real materials, real pumps, real valves, real fuel handling devices.

Most importantly for the future of U.S. nuclear technical leadership, the FFTF can provide 5 to 10 times the fast neutron flux of any existing facility and it has the testing location capacity to support numerous parallel experiments.

Since it already exists, its siting process cannot become a new battleground for the ancient rivalries between the national labs, their local economic boosters and their congressional representatives.

(Note: The link under the “rivalries” statement is a fascinating clipping from page 4 of the Jan 29, 1967 edition of the Idaho State Journal. It’s a 50 year old description of the political/booster effort to convince the AEC to site the FFTF in Washington that includes a lament by Idaho boosters about the fact that they were not equally well organized to find new missions for their laboratory facility.)

The facility has its required state and local permits and is covered by an active environmental impact statement. It might be operational before the first shovel full of dirt could be turned for a new facility whose requirements document isn’t even started.

Stuart Maloy is the advanced materials test lead at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Here is how he responded when asked about the urgency of a fast neutron test reactor.

“I am very interested in a facility for fast neutron irradiation of core reactor materials. It would greatly accelerate the development of improved radiation tolerant materials for nuclear fuel cladding applications.”

That statement is applicable to conventional reactors as well as fast reactors. Much of the neutron flux that affects cladding materials hasn’t been moderated.

The FFTF offers an almost immediately available place for a new generation of nuclear professionals to learn that fast neutron fission isn’t something for the distant future or forgotten past. Designing systems and making them work isn’t just a programming exercise.

There’s a cadre of willing and available teachers and mentors, some of who still reside in eastern Washington, who would eagerly accept the challenge of engaging in the task of transferring their knowledge to a new generation.

It’s time to accept reality, quit holding out for a new facility and begin taking full advantage of our inheritance.

Reaction from Idaho National Laboratory

While writing the above, I had contacted the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for their comments. Unfortunately, I sent my the information request to the wrong office. The process of routing the request and obtaining a response thus took longer than usual, so the response missed the deadline for the edition of Fuel Cycle Week in which the article was run.

Before simply republishing that article here, I asked INL to provide an updated response and provided a copy of the initial article. Here is the response provided by INL Public Affairs and Strategic Initiatives.

INL would like to provide you the following information, which all can be attributed to Hans Gougar (title below):

There is a strong need for fast neutron irradiations as expressed by potential users. There are four potential approaches to meeting these user needs:

  1. Use of thermal irradiation reactors (such as HFIR or ATR): limited fast irradiations can be performed in thermal reactors, but irradiation conditions are usually not prototypical enough to create data required in a formal fuel development program for non-LWR fast reactor designs.
  2. Use of foreign fast irradiation reactors: such irradiations have been performed in the past, but they typically have very long schedules, due both to lack of available space in these reactors and to the difficulties in transporting experimental samples to and from a foreign country.
  3. The restart of FFTF has already been studied by DOE: Siting Study For Hanford Advanced Fuels Test & Research Center.
  4. A new fast test reactor: would utilize a modern design and new experimental approaches; it would provide capabilities well adapted to current and future needs for advanced power reactors.

Aside: It’s worth noting that the study mentioned in item #3 is the CBCG study conducted for the GNEP program that is mentioned earlier in this article. That study describes FFTF as an incredible asset. Here is another quote from the Executive Summary of the Siting Study for Hanford Advanced Fuels Test & Research Center.

The reactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) complex and the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) represents an opportunity for DOE to accelerate a commercially viable and sustainable closed fuel cycle by at least a decade. DOE will gain a substantial reduction in programmatic risk through a cost-effective test program using existing facilities, and realize a multi-billion dollar savings compared to the cost for constructing new test or prototype facilities. The impacts may not become apparent until after the nation is committed to the selected path and these facilities are constructed and have begun operations.

That quote introduces an additional facility – the FMEF – that makes the FFTF site even more attractive. This is how the report briefly describes the FMEF.

Fuels and Materials Examination Facility – The FMEF was constructed in the late 1970s and early 1980s as part of the LMR Program. The original mission for the facility included post-irradiation examination of irradiated fuels and materials as well as fast spectrum reactor test and driver fuel manufacture. The facility was originally designed to ERDA 6301 for missions that required enhanced safeguards and security. The facility was completed but not occupied for any programmatic mission. It is therefore uncontaminated and available to support GNEP.

GNEP could use FMEF to fabricate fuel on a prototypic scale as well as to assemble FFTF Driver Fuel and actinide fuels that will be needed for GNEP.

The FMEF consists of a 98-foot high Process Building with an attached Mechanical Equipment Wing on the west side and an Entry Wing across the south side. The 175-foot wide by 270-foot long Process Building provides about 188,000 ft2 of operations space. The 98-foot height makes the Process Building as tall as a seven-story office building. The Process Building also extends 35 feet below ground. The building is divided into six operating floors.

There is one more facility – Maintenance and Storage Facility (MASF) – that is described in the report. It is an integral and important part of the currently idled FFTF complex. Here is the brief summary description of the MASF found on page 16 of the Siting Study.

The MASF is a multi-purpose service center which supports FFTF. The main building contains a 28,000 ft.2 area serviced by a 60-ton overhead bridge crane. One half of this area is serviced by a 200-ton crane, and is 105 ft. high and contains floor space for repairs and maintenance of large equipment. It has below-grade shielded hot cells for sodium cleaning. A special feature is a large shielded enclosure that contains two shielded decontamination rooms. These can be used for both remote and hands-on cleaning of small equipment items and tools that are contaminated with radioactive material.

Any open-minded decision maker motivated to support development of advanced reactors with a capable fast neutron test facility would be impressed by the potential of the facility that already exists. Any reasonably experienced and knowledgable nuclear project manager would recognize that the path for building a brand new facility would be far more tortuous and fraught with the potential for serious delays or even cancellation somewhere along the 15-20 years the project would require starting today.

End Aside.

INL’s response to my request for information contained an additional quote.

“We agree that there is a significant need for a fast neutron irradiation capability in the United States that is hampering U.S. industry, government research and international efforts to develop advanced reactor designs. INL and partner national laboratories have begun early evaluation of potential test reactor design options that would fill this urgent need. Designing and building a new fast test reactor should be thoroughly evaluated against the other alternatives, including FFTF restart, using the increasingly limited capacity of foreign fast test reactors, and/or the use of existing U.S.-based thermal reactors.”

Hans Gougar, director of Advanced Reactor Technologies in INL’s Nuclear Science & Technology division

DOE has a documented process for capital acquisitions that is as arduous and cumbersome as the major system acquisition process used by the Department of Defense. There are some pretty solid reasons why each milestone step is bureaucratically and politically important. Done correctly, the process can help avoid technical SNAFUs like the A-12 and political quagmires like the MOX facility.

However, the process can be accelerated when there is a need and an obvious answer to that need sitting around in the land-based equivalent of a mothball fleet. With libraries worth of QA documents, the physical presence of the facilities and some subtle political pressure, it should be possible for a focused and motivated DOE to power through both CD-0 (Statement of Mission Need) and CD-1 (Analysis of Alternatives) in record time.

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors, mothball, Politics of Nuclear Energy

Nukes in Las Vegas. ANS Winter Meeting 2016 part 1

November 7, 2016 By Rod Adams 39 Comments

ANS Winter Meeting 2016 Mentor Session
ANS Winter Meeting 2016 Mentor Session

The ANS winter meeting for 2016 will officially begin today, but the weekend has been full of committee meetings, hallway gatherings and organized sessions for the Young Members Group and the High Temperature Reactor (HTR) embedded topical discussion.

I learned long ago that I needed to arrive at ANS meetings well before the President’s Reception on Sunday evening, but I now regret that I made my arrangements to be here Sunday morning instead of Saturday morning. I apparently missed some useful sessions on HTRs, a couple of spirited discussions among the young members, a gathering of the Clean Power Coalition and a highly praised concert featuring a cover band who played the standards from the 1970s and 1980s.

Margaret Harding was tweeting highlights of the HTR sessions @M2harding.

As usual, the area near the registration desk turned out to be a target-rich environment for running into old friends and long time acquaintances. I’m not going to tie commentary to names, but I’d like to share some impressions from my highly unscientific and biased sample.

There was a relatively balanced mix of optimism, pessimism and equanimity about the future of the nuclear enterprise in the US.

Researchers were, as is often the case, concerned about the lack of sufficient grants and other forms of funding for their interest areas. They shared stories of colleagues who had decided to find other interest areas. Those at the meeting are hanging on, hoping that money will eventually follow at least some of the nicely worded pro-nuclear legislation introduced — but not passed — during the Congress that has almost finished its work.

People at advanced reactor and SMR start-up enterprises described intense levels of fascinating work, some frustration with paperwork burdens, and a bit of concern about long-term funding and market issues.

I did not find anyone who is working on the AP1000 construction projects. That’s no surprise; they are likely to be working long hours with few, if any days off from activities that are on the critical path for completing those projects.

There is a strong student and young members contingent. One of the best hours of my day was participating in the Mentor session and talking with people who are technically trained, but very interested in communications, policy and advocacy.

I attended part of the decommissioning committee meeting. As I departed, I tossed out the question for them to ponder about idling or mothballing nuclear facilities as an option to destroying their future utility. I think one of the members of the group was involved in the study that resulted in a finding that Ft Calhoun could never be economically competitive; I’d really like to engage in a more detailed discussion about the assumptions and methods used.

The communications committee meeting was well attended and covered some interesting future programs. One of the more intriguing discussions involved a gentleman who has wanted to accomplish something in encouraging better writing about nuclear science for the general public but he had never had the resources he thought he needed. He’s come into some money that he did not expect or depend on and is now going to make it useful. We need more people like this!

I had a couple of depressing discussions with people who were concerned about the future of nuclear energy in the US. They pointed to the plant closings, the project cancellations and the lack of substantive action from the federal government to help the public recognize the value of clean nuclear energy. They described a noticeable exodus of talent to other industries; people who qualify to be nukes are eagerly sought by many employers in various fields of endeavor.

I also had an uplifting conversation with a young friend who has impressive international experience and technical expertise who has decided to focus more on the business and policy side of the nuclear enterprise. She’s started a position with one of the up and comers where she will be building business relationships and working public and policy issues associated with her new employer’s product. I’ve always said that nuclear needs more talented marketers.

This year, I didn’t attend the President’s Reception so I have no reports to share about that event. That might have been an incorrect decision, but my frugal upbringing couldn’t allow me to cough up $75 for a 2-hour cocktail hour. (Regular and student attendees don’t pay extra; the reception comes with their normal fees.)

On that note, I wonder when Vegas hotels changed their habit of moderately priced food and beverages as a way of encouraging expenditures on tables and slot machines. My in room Kuerig coffee maker has a $13/serving price tag while burgers at one of the “bar and grill” restaurants in the casino area were listed at $20+ on the menu. Food court for me.

Aside: Now might be a good time to remind readers that Atomic Insights operates on a value for value model. It’s ad free and there are no paywalls, but readers who like what we do can help retain those features by making non-tax deductible payments for value received. There’s a button on the front page. If you prefer to send checks, use the contact form to request payment and address information. End Aside.

I’m looking forward to today’s plenary sessions for both the general meeting and the HTR2016 embedded topical. I also have the President’s Special Session Identifying The Nuclear Grand Challenges on my list of “must attend” sessions.

I’m also looking forward to participating in a panel discussion on Tuesday titled U.S. Reactor Fleet Viability in a Challenging Financial Market.

Here is the blurb about the session taken from the meeting agenda.

Sponsored by: OPD Cosponsored by: YMG
Session Organizers: Timothy M. Crook (Texas A&M), Catherine Perego (Westinghouse)
Cochairs: Timothy M. Crook (Texas A&M), Hitesh Bindra (KSU)
Location: Octavius 6 Time: 1:00-4:00 pm
The U.S. nuclear fleet is faced with both external and internal nancial pressures. As the industry internally attempts to reduce costs through Delivering the Nuclear Promise, operating plants are being forced into early shutdown because of unfavorable market conditions driven by external factors. This panel will discuss the financial impact of corporate and governmental policies, socio-technological changes, decommissioning, and operational challenges on the nuclear energy industry. Representatives from nuclear engineering academia, nuclear energy industry, and environmental protection organizations will participate in this panel to envision the current and future roles of education, outreach, policy, and advocacy in addressing these challenges.
Panelists:
Michael Shellenberger (Environmental Progress) or Eric Meyer (Environmental Progress)
Kathryn McCarthy (INL)
Paul Wilson (Univ of Wisconsin)
David Fein (Exelon Corp.)
Rod Adams (Atomic Insights)

Filed Under: mothball, ANS Winter 2016

Another U.S. Nuclear Plant [Might Have Been] Killed By Competition

October 31, 2016 By Rod Adams 37 Comments

Less than a week after the newest U.S. nuclear reactor entered commercial service, one of the oldest nuclear reactors in the U.S.. the Ft Calhoun Station (FCS), shut down for good. Completed in 1974 for a total cost of less than $200 million – still twice the estimated cost – the plant has had its […]

Filed Under: Aging nuclear, decommissioning, mothball

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Michael Scarangella on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Gareth on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors
  • Rod Adams on “The Martian’s” RTG science includes jarring errors

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy