Identifying Challenges in Safeguards for Metallic Fuel Fabrication Facilities
As new advanced reactors gain popularity, there is an increasing interest in metallic fuel fabrication for fast reactors. While metallic fuels themselves are not a new idea, as many of the first reactors employed metallic fuels, new designs, compositions, and fabrication methods are appearing throughout the nuclear community. As the interest grows and facilities are constructed, both domestic and international safeguards will need to be heavily involved to support safeguards-by-design (SBD) measures from the start. This work compiles a review of historical and modern fuel types and fabrication methods, fabrication processes, safeguards gaps, and potential safeguards solutions. Metallic nuclear fuel types have been around for many decades and were included in some of the first reactors including the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR)-I and -II, the Fermi 1 reactor, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), and the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR). These reactors used various compositions including pure uranium (U) metal, U-zirconium (Zr) alloys, plutonium (Pu)-aluminum (Al) alloys, U-fissium (Fs) alloys, U-Pu-Zr alloys, and U-molybdenum (Mo) alloys [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. These small alloying additions are included to improve the material properties of the pure U metal. The alpha-phase U (stable below 661C) suffers elongation in one direction causing grain boundary cracking and increasing creep rate due to irradiation growth, thermal cycling, and preferential crystal orientation. It is ideal to utilize the gamma-phase U (typically stable above 769C) by adding small amounts of alloying elements such as Zr or Mo to stabilize this phase down to room temperature [3]. Additionally, some research has been focused on U with transuranic (TRU) elements present, typically coming from the used fuel recycling process. Including these elements in fast reactor fuel can aid in the reduction of nuclear waste by burning minor long-lived actinides. However, the additions of TRU elements can cause concerns to arise when trying to fabrication or safeguard metallic fuels. A typical metallic fuel element is shown in Figure 1. Sodium is added into the cladding to create a thermal bond between the fuel slug and cladding wall. The fuel slug is then inserted and the end plug is welded on to the top of the fuel element. A gas plenum is left to create a headspace for gaseous fission products to escape rather than continue to build in the fuel itself [1, 5]. Other fuel element geometries exist as well, such as the Lightbridge twisted cruciform geometry shown in Figure 2 [6]. This design allows for better cooling performance and provides room for fuel rod swelling without impacting the fuel rod diameter. There are many different fabrication methods for metallic fuels, which is one of the many benefits of these fuel types. Many of these fabrication methods are relatively easy and cost-efficient. The most popular fabrication method is injection casting, sometimes called vacuum induction melting (VIM), shown in Figure 3 [4, 8, 9, 7, 10]. This method was largely used for EBR-II fuel fabrication. The injection casting system is contained inside of a vessel consisting of a Y2O3-coated graphite crucible surrounded by an induction coil with ZrO2-coated quartz molds suspended above the crucible. The fuel feedstock is placed inside of the graphite crucible and melted using the induction furnace. The induction furnace utilizes a dual frequency with the high frequency melting the feedstock and the low frequency causing stirring of the melted feedstock to form a homogeneous mixture. The mixture is heated to approximately 1600C in an argon environment. The vessel is evacuated and then the quartz molds are lowered into the graphite crucible containing the molten metal and the vessel is repressurized to inject the metal fuel upwards into the molds. The molds are removed and then shattered to release the fuel slugs. This fabrication method was used to fabricate 39,000 metallic fuel pins for EBR-II. While injection casting has been the most common metallic fuel fabrication method throughout the decades, many other methods have been explored including low-pressure gravity casting, microwave casting, continuous casting, centrifugal casting, coextrusion, and many others [11, 12, 8, 13, 14, 15]. Some of these methods aim to mitigate challenges that arise with americium (Am) volatilization during the casting process for TRU-containing fuel feedstocks, an issue with injection casting. Coextrusion is one of the methods explored at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and has been utilized for the initial fabrication tests of Lightbridge's unique fuels, as well as other metallic fuels with cladding coextruded. In this process, large billets are formed and machined and then inserted into a molten salt bath for approximately 30 minutes. The billets are then loaded into the extrusion press and extruded. This process can be seen in Figure 4 [15].