Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 322, Issue 3, pp 1267–1272 | Cite as

Changing the rules of the game: used fuel studies outside of a remote handling facility

  • Jon M. Schwantes
  • Michele Conroy
  • Timothy G. Lach
  • Jason M. Lonergan
  • Kristi L. Pellegrini
  • J. David Robertson
  • Richard A. ClarkEmail author
Article

Abstract

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has leveraged focused ion beam capability at their Category II Nuclear Facility to facilitate nuclear materials analysis and experimentation at the micron scale. For this particular study, micron-size specimens of un-irradiated UO2 fuel pellets of various enrichments were prepared and irradiated to a burnup equivalent of 8–3700 MWd/MTU. This represents first of its kind study of used fuel investigations outside of a hot cell facility, dramatically minimizing resource requirements through reduction in scale. Results of this study provide insight into the initial production of noble metal phase particles in used nuclear fuel at extremely low burnup levels.

Keywords

Used nuclear fuel Noble metal phase Epsilon phase Nuclear materials science Focussed ion beam University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD): Nuclear Processing Science Initiative (NPSI). Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is a multi-program national laboratory operated for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Battelle Memorial Institute under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Most experiments were performed in the PNNL RPL Facility with the RPL Microscopy Quiet Suite, which is outfitted with a FEI Helios 660 FIM/SEM and a JEOL GrandARM300 Aberration Corrected (AC) STEM/TEM. TEM measurements were conducted using a JEOL ARM200 AC-STEM/TEM located in 3410, part of the Physical Sciences Facility (PSF) on campus. All of these instruments are part of PNNL’s Institutional Microscopy Tools.

Supplementary material

10967_2019_6921_MOESM1_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 87 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bradbury BT et al (1965) Electron probe micro-analysis of irradiated UO2. J Nucl Mater 17(3):227236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kleykamp H, Paschoal JO, Pejsa R, Thommler T (1985) Composition and structure of fission product precipitates in irradiated oxide fuels: correlation with phase studies in the Mo–Ru–Rh–Pd and BaO–UO2–ZrO2–MoO2 systems. J Nucl Mater 130:426–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pellegrini KL et al (2019) Chemical and isotopic characterization of noble metal phase from commercial UO2 fuel. Anal Chem 91(10):6522–6529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cui Y et al (2012) An analytical solution for simulation of the fission gas behaviors with time-dependent piece-wise boundary resolution. J Nucl Mater 424(1–3):109–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buck EC, Mausolf EJ, McNamara BK, Soderquist CZ, Schwantes JM (2015) Nanostructure of metallic particles in light water reactor used nuclear fuel. J Nucl Mater 461:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lewis BJ et al (2011) Modelling of iodine-induced stress corrosion cracking in CANDU fuel. J Nucl Mater 408(3):209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carbol P et al (2009) Hydrogen suppresses UO2 corrosion. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 73(15):4366–4375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olander DR (1976) Fundamental aspects of nuclear reactor fuel elements. USERDA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guttus JH, Hughes H (1970) Theoretical analysis of cladding stresses and strains produced by expansion of cracked fuel pellets. Nucl Appl Tech 9:40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nogita K, Une K (1998) High resolution TEM observation and density estimation of Xe bubbles in high burnup UO2 fuels. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 141:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cagna C, Zacharie-Aubrun I, Bienvenu P, Barrallier L, Michel B, Noirot J (2016) A complementary approach to estimate the internal pressure of fission gas bubbles by SEM-SIMS-EPMA in irradiated nuclear fuels. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 109:012002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walker CT, Bremier S, Portier S, Hasnaoui R, Goll W (2009) SIMS analysis of an UO2 fuel irradiated at low temperature to 65 MWd/kgHM. J Nucl Mater 393(2):212–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang WL et al (2019) In situ study of particle precipitation in metal-doped CeO2 during thermal treatment and ion irradiation for emulation of irradiating fuels. J Phys Chem C 123(4):2591–2601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Devanathan R et al (2019) Hexagonal close-packed high-entropy alloy formation under extreme processing conditions. J Mater Res 34(5):709–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li J, Malis T, Dionne S (2006) Recent advances in FIB-TEM specimen preparation techniques. Mater Charact 57(1):64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berek H, Aneziris CG (2018) Effect of focused ion beam sample preparation on the phase composition of zirconia. Ceram Int 44(15):17643–17654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baxter F et al (2018) Phase stability of zirconium oxide films during focused ion beam milling. J Nucl Mater 504:176–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schwantes JM, Bair JL, Buck EC, Devanathan R, Kessler SH, Lach TG, Lonergren JM, McNamara BK, Palmerb CJ, Clark RA (Accepted) A new non-diffusional gas bubble production route in used nuclear fuel: implications for fission gas release, cladding corrosion, and next generation fuel design. J Phys Chem Chem PhysGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Benedict M, Thomas PH, Hans LW (1981) Nuclear chemical engineering, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yablinsky CA et al (2015) Characterization of swift heavy ion irradiation damage in ceria. J Mater Res 30(9):1473–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machuron-Mandard X, Madic C (1996) Plutonium dioxide particle properties as a function of calcination temperature. J Alloy Compd 235:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott BL et al (2019) Relationships between experimental signatures and processing history for a variety of PuO2 materials. J Nucl Mater 521:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stebelkov V et al (2018) Determination of isotopic composition of uranium in the CMX-4 samples by SIMS. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 315:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keegan E et al (2016) Nuclear forensics: scientific analysis supporting law enforecement and nuclear security investigations. Anal Chem 88:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hutcheon I, Borg L (2013) Forensic analysis of samples from the nuclear fuel cycle. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayer K, Wallenius M, Varga Z (2015) Interviewing a silent (radioactive) witness through nuclear forensic analysis. Anal Chem 87:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gaschen BK et al (2016) MAMA user guide v2.0.1. Los Alamos National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferreira T, W Rasband (2012) ImageJ user guide version IJ 1.46rGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olsen AM et al (2017) Quantifying morphological features of a-U3O8 with image analysis for nuclear forensics. Anal Chem 89(5):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hanson AB et al (2019) Quantifying impurity effects on the surface morphology of α-U3O8. Anal Chem 91:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA
  2. 2.University of Missouri at ColumbiaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Bernal InstituteUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  4. 4.IB3 Global SolutionsCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations