Abstract

The National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) operated safely for over 60 years and supported a wide range of applications including, testing of fuels and materials under typical power reactor conditions in two experimental loops (U-1 and U-2). Both experimental loops had been taken out of service to address seismic deficiencies. CNL applied a graded approach to successfully return one of these loops, the U-2 Loop to service. The graded approach, without compromising safety, applied a risk informed methodology commensurate to the potential risk posed by the operation of the U-2 Loop. The work enabled the U-2 Loop to resume operation until the NRU reactor was permanently shut down in Mar. 31, 2018, generating valuable data that will be used in the development of advanced nuclear fuels and materials. This paper describes the graded approach employed by CNL that supported U-2 loop return to service (RTS). The use of graded approach is articulated to support development of safety and licensing cases for small modular reactor projects.

References

1.
Vincelette
,
J.
, and
Weaver
,
A.
,
2017
, “
CRL Site Transition: Safe Shutdown and Readiness for Decommissioning of National Research Universal and MO-99 Production Facility
,”
11th International Conference on CANDU Maintenance and Nuclear Components
,
Toronto, ON, Canada
, Oct. 1–4, Paper No. 79, p.
12
.
2.
Van Drunen
,
C.
,
2017
, “
Filling the Neutron Gap at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories After Shutdown of the National Research Universal (NRU) Reactor
,”
18th Meeting of the International Group on Research Reactors (IGORR 18)
,
Sydney, Australia
, Dec. 3–7, Paper No. 76, p.
10
.
3.
Mistry
,
S.
,
2013
, “
Safe Operation of the NRU Research Reactor Now and Beyond 2021
,”
15th Meeting of the International Group on Research Reactors (IGORR 15)
,
Daejeon, Korea
, Oct. 13–18, Paper No. 03_1019, p.
13
.
4.
Karam
,
M.
,
2014
, “
The Role of Safety Analysis in Addressing Environmental Qualification of the NRU Reactor Safety Systems
,”
19th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014)
,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
, Aug. 24–28, Paper No. 389, p.
12
.
5.
Mantifel
,
N.
,
2014
, “
NRU Licence Extension Via Integrated Safety Review
,”
19th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014)
,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
, Aug. 24–28, Paper No. 379, p.
10
.
6.
Floyd
,
M. R.
,
Banks
,
D.
,
Carver
,
J.
,
Leung
,
T.
,
TerMarsch
,
W.
,
Van Hoof
,
F.
,
Walters
,
L.
, and
Wang
,
N.
,
2014
, “
The NRU Reactor: Past, Present and Future
,”
19th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014)
,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
, Aug. 24–28, Paper No. 190, p.
12
.
7.
Nitheanandan
,
N.
,
2014
, “
Reactor Safety Research and Development in Chalk River Laboratories
,”
19th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC 2014)
,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
, Aug. 24–28, Paper No. 305, p.
20
.
8.
Floyd
,
M. R.
,
2011
, “
Advanced Fuel Cycle Development at Chalk River Laboratories
,”
International Conference on Future of Heavy Water Reactors
,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
, Oct. 2–5, Paper No. 24, p.
11
.
9.
Yatabe
,
S.
,
Floyd
,
M. R.
, and
Dimayuga
,
F.
,
2018
, “
Canadian Experience in Irradiation and Testing of MOX Fuel
,”
J. Nucl. Mater.
,
502
, pp.
177
190
.10.1016/j.jnucmat.2018.02.015
10.
Nguyen
,
S.
,
Wilkin
,
B.
, and
Leung
,
T.
,
2011
, “
Current Developments and Future Challenges in Physics Analyses of the NRU Heavy Water Research Reactor
,”
International Conference on Future of Heavy Water Reactors
,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
, Oct. 2–5, Paper No. 051, p.
14
.
11.
Harrison
,
N. F.
,
2012
, “
AECL's Experimental Fuel and Materials Test Loops in NRU
,”
IAEA Technical Meeting on In-Pile Testing and Instrumentation for Development of Generation-IV Fuels and Materials
,
Halden, Norway
, Aug. 21–24, p. 11.
12.
CNL,
2016
, “
U-2 Loop Return to Service
,” Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, accessed Sept. 12,
2019
, http://www.cnl.ca/en/home/work/awards/2016-awards-of-excellence/u2-loop-return-to-service.aspx
13.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
,
2011
, “
Design of Small Reactors Facilities
,”
CNSC
,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
, Regulatory Document No. RD-367.
14.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
,
2014
, “
Design of Reactor Facilities: Nuclear Power Plant
,”
CNSC
,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
, Regulatory Document No. REGDOC-2.5.2.
15.
IAEA
,
2016
, “
Safety of Research Reactors
,”
International Atomic Energy Agency
,
Vienna, Austria
, IAEA Safety Standards No. SSR-3.
16.
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
,
2014
, “
Deterministic Safety Analysis
,”
CNSC
,
Ottawa, ON, Canada
, Regulatory Document No. REGDOC-2.4.1.
17.
Mutterback
,
E.
,
2000
, “
Safety Upgrades to the NRU Research Reactor
,”
21st Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society
,
Toronto, ON, Canada
, June 11–14, Paper No. C14, p.
17
.
18.
Lamarre
,
G. B.
, and
Martin
,
W. G.
,
2003
, “
Safety System Upgrades to a Research Reactor: A Regulatory Perspective
,”
Ninth Meeting of the International Group on Research Reactors (IGORR 9)
,
Sydney, Australia
, Mar. 24–28, p. 8.
19.
Bessada
,
E.
,
1997
, “
Installation of a Second Trip System
,”
Annual Canadian Nuclear Association/Canadian Nuclear Society Conference on Powering Canada's Future
,
Toronto, Ottawa, ON, Canada
, June 8–11, p. 9.
20.
CSA
,
2017
, “
Management System Requirements for Nuclear Facilities
,”
Canadian Standard Association
,
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
, CSA Standard No. N286-12 (R2017).
21.
Van Drunen
,
C.
,
2012
, “
Change Management Considerations for Grading Management System Requirements
,”
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Meeting on Grading Management System Requirements
, V
ienna, Austria
, Jan. 23–27, p. 14.
22.
IAEA
,
2001
, “
Managing Change in Nuclear Utilities
,”
International Atomic Energy Agency
,
Vienna, Austria
, Standard No. IAEA-TECDOC-1226.
23.
International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group
,
2003
, “
Managing Change in the Nuclear Industry: The Effects on Safety
,”
International Atomic Energy Agency
,
Vienna, Austria
, Report No. INSAG-18.
24.
Electric Power Research Institute
,
1991
, “
A Methodology for Assessment of Nuclear Plant Seismic Margin
,”
Electric Power Research Institute
,
Palo Alto, CA
, Report No. EPRI NP-6041-SL.
25.
Seismic Qualification Utilities Group (SQUG)
,
2001
, “
Generic Implementation Procedure (GIP) for Seismic Verification of Nuclear Plant Equipment
,”
Electric Power Research Institute
,
Palo Alto, CA
, Revision 3A.
26.
CSA
,
2014
, “
General Requirements for Seismic Design and Qualification of CANDU Nuclear Power Plants
,”
Canadian Standard Association
,
Mississauga, ON, Canada
, CSA Standard No. N289.1-08 (R2013).
27.
CSA
,
2015
, “
Design Procedures for Seismic Qualification of Nuclear Power Plants
,”
Canadian Standard Association
, CSA Standard No. N289.3-10 (R2015).
28.
Ericson
,
C. A.
,
2005
,
Hazard Analysis Techniques for System Safety
,
Wiley
,
New York
.
29.
Leung
,
R.
, and
Blahnik
,
C.
,
2008
, “
Severe Accident Assessment of NRU Reactor
,”
Ninth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management
,
Hong Kong, China
, May 18–23, p. 12.
30.
Fitchett
,
A.
,
Burns
,
D.
, and
Douglas
,
G.
,
2016
, “
Development and Implementation of a Severe Accident Management Program for NRU
,”
36th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society
,
Toronto, ON, Canada
, June 19–22, p. 12.
31.
Van Meter
,
J.
, and
Mistry
,
S.
,
2016
, “
Application of IAEA Lessons Learned From Fukushima
,”
IAEA Technical Meeting on Lessons Learned and Safety Improvements Related to External Hazards Based on the IAEA Fukushima Daiichi Accident Report
,
Vienna, Austria
, Nov. 23–25, p. 17.
32.
Lee
,
W. S.
,
Grosh
,
D. L.
,
Tillman
,
F. A.
, and
Lie
,
C. H.
,
1985
, “
Fault Tree Analysis, Methods, and Applications—A Review
,”
IEEE Trans. Reliab.
,
R-34
(
3
), pp.
194
203
.10.1109/TR.1985.5222114
33.
Hanna
,
B. N.
,
1998
, “
CATHENA: A Thermalhydraulic Code for CANDU Analysis
,”
J. Nucl. Eng. Des.
,
180
(
2
), pp.
113
131
.10.1016/S0029-5493(97)00294-X
34.
Shioza
,
S.
,
Saito
,
S.
, and
Yanagihara
,
S.
,
1982
, “
Zircaloy UO2 and Water Reactions and Cladding Temperature Estimation for Rapidly Heated Fuel Rods Under an RIA Condition
,”
J. Nucl. Sci. Technol.
,
19
(
5
), pp.
368
383
.10.1080/18811248.1982.9734158
You do not currently have access to this content.