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empty guide tubes to accept the individual control rods in a control rod assembly, and when the control rod assembly is withdrawn from the fuel assembly, the brazements serve as extensions of the guide tubes, supporting the withdrawn parts.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

Popular posts from this blog

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...