Skip to main content

The Babcock & Wilcox Mark-C Fuel Assembly: A Nuclear Rarity

A few days ago I visited a high school to talk to a nuclear science class. I was pretty impressed that there was such a class but even more impressed to find that the school has a fuel assembly mockup. I have to admit that I was puzzled by it, though. It was unlike anything I had seen before. Since the fuel rods were in a 17 by 17 array, I assumed that it was an early Westinghouse design. After the visit, a little digging through old reports proved that assumption was incorrect. The mockup is a Babcock & Wilcox Mark-C, and it is a nuclear rarity.

All of the Babcock & Wilcox reactors currently operating in the U.S. use fuel assemblies from the Mark-B series, and all fuel assemblies in the Mark-B series have a 15 by 15 array of rods. Therefore, for devotees of nuclear fuel, "B&W" is almost synonymous with "15 by 15".

Mark-C fuel was designed for a later model of Babcock & Wilcox reactor. These reactors are often called "205 plants" because the design called for 205 fuel assemblies in the core. (The operating B&W plants in the U.S. are all "177 plants.") Four "205 plants" were ordered: Bellefonte 1 and 2 plus Washington Nuclear 1 in the U.S and Muelheim-Kaerlich in Germany. None of the U.S. plants was ever completed. Mark-C fuel was built for at least one of the Bellefonte reactors but, of course, not irradiated. The fuel was eventually returned to the manufacturer for dismantling and recycling. Nevertheless, four Mark-C fuel assemblies were irradiated in the U.S. The irradiation was in the Oconee 2 reactor, which was built for Mark-B fuel.

How can you irradiate Mark-C fuel in a Mark-B plant? The Mark-C was cleverly designed with the same height and width as the Mark-B series, so Mark-B and Mark-C fuel assemblies were interchangeable in terms of size. But their control rods were quite different. A Mark-B control rod assembly has 16 rods, and a Mark-C control rod assembly has 24. And the control rod positions don't line up. Reactor buffs will know that even if the Mark-C fuel assemblies were shipped with their own control rod assemblies, those control rod assemblies would be incompatible with some of the hardware (known as "brazements") inside the reactor. Fuel assemblies have empty guide tubes to accept the individual control rods in a control rod assembly, and when the control rod assembly is withdrawn from the fuel assembly, the brazements serve as extensions of the guide tubes, supporting the withdrawn parts. The brazements at Oconee 2 were designed for Mark-B fuel, not Mark-C. Therefore, it would seem to be impossible to use Mark-C fuel in Oconee 2, right? Wrong, as the Oconee 2 irradiation showed.

The explanation is that pressurized water reactors are designed so that fewer than half of the fuel assemblies are equipped with control rod assemblies. The remaining assemblies are fitted with components that fit into the guide tubes but don't get withdrawn during operation. These components do not have to be compatible with the brazements. So the explanation is simple: The Mark-C assemblies irradiated at Oconee 2 were placed in locations without control rod assemblies.

The more I think about it, the more I am amazed that this fuel assembly mockup, which may be the only Mark-C mockup in the world, is languishing in an obscure classroom. Finding it was like puttering around in an attic and discovering something of great historical value. I don't imagine that there's much market value in an old fuel assembly mockup, but it seems that there should be a museum that would collect and display such things. Some of them have stories to tell.

For more on the nuclear fuel production process, click here. For more on Babcock and Wilcox's current nuclear business, click here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

selina said…
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


Sarah

http://blanket.ws

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…