Expert panels comprised of subject matter experts identified at the U.S. National Laboratories (SNL, ANL, INL, ORNL, LBL, and BNL), universities (University of Wisconsin and Ohio State University), international agencies (IRSN, CEA, JAEA, KAERI, and JRC-IE) and private consultation companies (Radiation Effects Consulting) were assembled to perform a gap analysis for sodium fast reactor licensing. Expert-opinion elicitation was performed to qualitatively assess the current state of sodium fast reactor technologies. Five independent gap analyses were performed resulting in the following topical reports:
Idaho National Laboratory
Robert Bari
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Robert Budnitz
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Jim Cahalan, Chris Grandy, Dave Wade
Argonne National Laboratory
Michael Corradini
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Richard Denning
Ohio State University
George FlanaganOak Ridge National Laboratory
Steve Wright
Sandia National Laboratories
March 2010 FCRD-REAC-2010-0001268 DISCLAIMER This information was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.
Advanced Sodium Fast Reactor Accident Initiators/Sequences Technology Gap AnalysisMarch 2010 9
SUMMARYAn advanced Sodium-Fast-Reactor (SFR) is being evaluated by DOE to provide the capability to transmute actinides and enhance the long-term fissile fuel-supply for fission reactors. An essential element in this evaluation is whether an adequate technology base exists to support the safety case for an SFR.The panel concluded that there are no major technology gaps in preparing a safety case for an advanced SFR, so long as one stays with known technology. Defining the current state of knowledge was therefore an important activity of the panel, along with the context in which it can be used for licensing. Significant potential departures from known technology were identified, such as development of fuel containing high concentrations of minor actinides, which will require further investments in R&D both to develop the technology and to develop an adequate safety case.