Updated NGNP Fuel Acquisition Strategy

A Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) fuel acquisition strategy was first established in 2007. In that report, a detailed technical assessment of potential fuel vendors for the first core of NGNP was conducted by an independent group of international experts based on input from the three major reactor vendor teams. Part of the assessment included an evaluation of the credibility of each option, along with a cost and schedule to implement each strategy compared with the schedule and throughput needs of the NGNP project. While credible options were identified based on the conditions in place at the time, many changes in the assumptions underlying the strategy and in externalities that have occurred in the interim requiring that the options be re-evaluated. This document presents an update to that strategy based on current capabilities for fuel fabrication as well as fuel performance and qualification testing worldwide. In light of the recent Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project closure, the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) fuel development and qualification program needs to support both pebble and prismatic options under the NGNP project. A number of assumptions were established that formed a context for the evaluation. Of these, the most important are: • Based on logistics associated with the on-going engineering design activities, vendor teams would start preliminary design in October 2012 and complete in May 2014. A decision on reactor type will be made following preliminary design, with the decision process assumed to be completed in January 2015. Thus, no fuel decision (pebble or prismatic) will be made in the near term. • Activities necessary for both pebble and prismatic fuel qualification will be conducted in parallel until a fuel form selection is made. As such, process development, fuel fabrication, irradiation, and testing for pebble and prismatic options should not negatively influence each other during the period prior to a decision on reactor type. • Additional funding will be made available beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2012 to support pebble bed fuel fabrication process development and fuel testing while maintaining the prismatic fuel schedule. Options for fuel fabrication for prismatic and pebble bed were evaluated based on the credibility of each option, along with a cost and schedule to implement each strategy. The sole prismatic option is Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) producing uranium oxycarbide (UCO) tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel particles in compacts. This option finishes in the middle of 2022 . Options for the pebble bed are Nuclear Fuel Industries (NFI) in Japan producing uranium dioxide (UO2) TRISO fuel particles, and/or B&W producing UCO or UO2 TRISO fuel particles. All pebble options finish in mid to late 2022

Key differences in the fabrication, irradiation and high temperature accident testing of US and German TRISO-coated particle fuel, and their implications on fuel performance

Historically, the irradiation performance of TRISO-coated gas reactor particle fuel in Germany has been superior to that in the US. German fuel generally has displayed gas release values during irradiation three orders of magnitude lower than US fuel. Thus, we have critically examined the TRISO-coated fuel fabrication processes in the US and Germany and the associated irradiation database with a goal of understanding why the German fuel behaves acceptably, why the US fuel has not faired as well, and what process/production parameters impart the reliable performance to this fuel form. The postirradiation examination results are also reviewed to identify failure mechanisms that may be the cause of the poorer US irradiation performance. This comparison will help determine the roles that particle fuel process/product attributes and irradiation conditions (burnup, fast neutron fluence, temperature, degree of acceleration) have on the behavior of the fuel during irradiation and provide a more quantitative linkage between acceptable processing parameters, as-fabricated fuel properties and subsequent in-reactor performance

Key Differences in the Fabrication, Irradiation, and Safety Testing of U.S. and German TRISO-coated Particle Fuel and Their Implications on Fuel Performance

High temperature gas reactor technology is achieving a renaissance around the world. This technology relies on high quality production and performance of coated particle fuel. Historically, the irradiation performance of TRISO-coated gas reactor particle fuel in Germany has been superior to that in the United States. German fuel generally displayed in-pile gas release values that were three orders of magnitude lower than U.S. fuel. Thus, we have critically examined the TRISO-coated fuel fabrication processes in the U.S. and Germany and the associated irradiation database with a goal of understanding why the German fuel behaves acceptably, why the U.S. fuel has not faired as well, and what process/ production parameters impart the reliable performance to this fuel form. The postirradiation examination results are also reviewed to identify failure mechanisms that may be the cause of the poorer U.S. irradiation performance. This comparison will help determine the roles that particle fuel process/product attributes and irradiation conditions (burnup, fast neutron fluence, temperature, and degree of acceleration) have on the behavior of the fuel during irradiation and provide a more quantitative linkage between acceptable processing parameters, as-fabricated fuel properties and subsequent in-reactor performance

NP-MHTGR Fuel Development Program Results

In August 1988, the Secretary of Energy announced a strategy to acquire New Production Reactor capacity for producing tritium. The strategy involved construction of a New Production Modular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (NP-MHTGR) where the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was selected as the Management and Operations contractor for the project. Immediately after the announcement in August 1988, tritium target particle development began with the INEEL selected as the lead laboratory. Fuel particle development was initially not considered to be on a critical path for the project, therefore, the fuel development program was to run concurrently with the design effort of the NP-MHTGR

Updated NGNP Fuel Acquisition Strategy

A Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) fuel acquisition strategy was first established in 2007. In that report, a detailed technical assessment of potential fuel vendors for the first core of NGNP was conducted by an independent group of international experts based on input from the three major reactor vendor teams. Part of the assessment included an evaluation of the credibility of each option, along with a cost and schedule to implement each strategy compared with the schedule and throughput needs of the NGNP project. While credible options were identified based on the conditions in place at the time, many changes in the assumptions underlying the strategy and in externalities that have occurred in the interim requiring that the options be re-evaluated. This document presents an update to that strategy based on current capabilities for fuel fabrication as well as fuel performance and qualification testing worldwide. In light of the recent Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project closure, the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) fuel development and qualification program needs to support both pebble and prismatic options under the NGNP project. A number of assumptions were established that formed a context for the evaluation. Of these, the most important are: • Based on logistics associated with the on-going engineering design activities, vendor teams would start preliminary design in October 2012 and complete in May 2014. A decision on reactor type will be made following preliminary design, with the decision process assumed to be completed in January 2015. Thus, no fuel decision (pebble or prismatic) will be made in the near term. • Activities necessary for both pebble and prismatic fuel qualification will be conducted in parallel until a fuel form selection is made. As such, process development, fuel fabrication, irradiation, and testing for pebble and prismatic options should not negatively influence each other during the period prior to a decision on reactor type. • Additional funding will be made available beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2012 to support pebble bed fuel fabrication process development and fuel testing while maintaining the prismatic fuel schedule. Options for fuel fabrication for prismatic and pebble bed were evaluated based on the credibility of each option, along with a cost and schedule to implement each strategy. The sole prismatic option is Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) producing uranium oxycarbide (UCO) tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel particles in compacts. This option finishes in the middle of 2022 . Options for the pebble bed are Nuclear Fuel Industries (NFI) in Japan producing uranium dioxide (UO2) TRISO fuel particles, and/or B&W producing UCO or UO2 TRISO fuel particles. All pebble options finish in mid to late 2022

Spironolactone therapy in infants with congestive heart failure secondary to congenital heart disease.

The efficacy of treatment with spironolactone for congestive heart failure secondary to congenital heart disease was studied in 21 infants under 1 year of age. All received digoxin and chlorothiazide. In addition, group A (n = 10) was given supplements of potassium and group B (n = 11) received spironolactone. Daily clinical observations of vital signs, weight, hepatomegaly, and vomiting were recorded. Paired t test analysis showed significant reduction in liver size and weight (P less than 0.01) and respiratory rate (P less than 0.05) in group B, and less significant decreases in group A. The incidence of vomiting was slightly lower in group B. We conclude that the addition of spironolactone hastens and enhances the response to standard treatment with digoxin and chlorothiazide in infants with congestive heart failure

Oral health status of a long term care, veteran population

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates the largest, integrated health care system in the United States of America. The projected need for long-term-care in the VA health care system parallels an expected increase in need for care in the United States, but precedes the need for care in the general population by 25-30 yr. The VA\u27s Office of Dentistry, in an effort to estimate the resource requirements of this swelling group of veterans, initiated in 1986-7 an oral health survey of long-term care patients. The overall goals were to describe the oral health status of VA nursing home care units (NHCU) residents and to develop a methodology for estimating future dental health services utilization. This study describes the oral health status of the study population. Demographic and oral health data were collected for 650 long-term care residents of six VA NHCUs between October 1986 and July 1987. Data were collected on sociodemographic status, medical history, dental caries, periodontal diseases, oral soft tissue pathology, and the presence of dental prostheses. Caries and periodontal disease were evaluated using the United States National Institute of Dental Research Survey of Employed Adults and Seniors protocols. The oral health status of the population is described using DMF and ESI indices, the prevalence of oral lesions, levels of tooth loss, oral hygiene scores, and the status of existing dentures. Findings show moderate levels of untreated dental caries and periodontal disease and significant tooth loss which increased with age. A need for preventive therapy, restorative dentistry, conservative periodontal therapy, and prosthodontic care was evident