Aqueous processing of U–10Mo scrap for high performance research reactor fuel
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) Conversion program, which is part of the US government’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), supports the conversion of civilian use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) for reactor fuel and targets. The reason for conversion is to eliminate the use of any material that may pose a threat to the United States or other foreign countries. High performance research reactors (HPRRs) cannot make the conversion to a standard LEU fuel because they require a more dense fuel to meet their performance requirements. As a result, a more dense fuel consisting of a monolithic uranium–molybdenum alloy containing 10% (w/w) Mo with Al cladding and a Zr bonding-layer is being considered. Significant losses are expected in the fabrication of this fuel, so a means to recycle the scrap pieces is needed. Argonne National Laboratory has developed an aqueous-processing flowsheet for scrap recovery in the fuel fabrication process for high-density LEU-monolithic fuel based on data found in the literature. Experiments have been performed to investigate dissolution conditions for solutions containing approximately 20 g-U/L and 50 g-U/L with and without Fe(NO3)3. HNO3 and HF concentrations have been optimized for timely dissolution of the fuel scrap and prevention of the formation of the U–Zr2 intermetallic, explosive complex, while meeting the requirements needed for further processing.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nuclear Materials and Properties · Radioactive element chemistry and processing · Nuclear reactor physics and engineering
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (13)
Show source-provided references
1. D.M. Wachs, C.R. Clark, R.J. Dunavant, conceptual process description for the manufacture of low-enriched uranium–molybdenum, Fuel, INL/EXT-08-13840, February 2008.
2. D.C. Stepinksi, L.E. Maggos, J. Swanson, J. G. Stevens, G.F. Vandegrift, Scrap recovery operations in the fuel fabrication capacity, in: Proceedings of the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors Conference, Washington D.C., USA, October 2008.
3. W.W. Schulz, E.M. Duke, Reprocessing of low-enrichment uranium–molybdenum alloy fuels, HW-62086, September 1959.10.2172/4136192 ↗
4. Schulz · I&E Proc. Des. Develop. · 1956 · 1 · 15610.1021/i260002a017 ↗
5. T.A. Gens, Explosive reactions during reprocessing of reactor fuels containing uranium and zirconium or niobium, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report: CF-58-11-31, November 13, 1958.10.2172/4276261 ↗
6. J. G. Stevens, Personal Communication, April 2008.
7. K.J. Hofstetter, D.L. Bowers, R.P. Kemmerlin, Determination of the acidity of aqueous solutions containing hydrolyzable metal ions using oxalate complexation, Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant, Barnwell, South Carolina, June, 1978.
8. P. Faugeras, C. Lheureux, P. Leroy, Etude De Solutilite Du Molybdene en Miliieu Nitrique CEA Report No. 1823, Nuclear Study Center, Seclay, France, 1961.
9. Ferris · J. Chem. Eng. Data. · 1961 · 6 · 60010.1021/je60011a035 ↗
10. R.A. Pierce, Uranium metal dissolution in the presence of fluoride and boron, WSRC-TR-2003-0500, November 2003.10.2172/821176 ↗
11. R.J. Jackson, W.L. Johns, Explosive nature of uranium-base niobium alloys after immersion in nitric acid, Dow Chemical Company, Rocky Flats Division Report: RFP-1575, December 8, 1970.10.2172/4084445 ↗
12. J.L. Swanson, An Estimation of the Explosion Hazard During Reprocessing of Metallic Uranium Fuel Elements Metallurgically Bonded to Zircaloy CladdingHanford Report: HW-62109, September, 1959.10.2172/4206567 ↗
13. R.P. Larsen, R.S. Shor, H.M. Feder, D.S. Flikkema, A study of the explosive properties of uranium–zirconium alloys, ANL-5135, July 1954.10.2172/4359056 ↗