Radiation Chemistry and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Internal presentation for "UK Professor and PhD Student Visit: Presentation on Separations and Waste Forms along with National Programs."
38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Fuel cycle”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Waste Minimization Effort at Heavy Isotope Production and Advanced Fuel Cycle Development Facilities at ORNL
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Oakley, Brian↗
Neutron Signatures for Nondestructive Assay in Thorium Fuel Cycles
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Searfus, Oskar Fick↗
A Methodology Development for Proliferation Resistance Optimization of Advanced Reactors and Fuel Cycle
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Chirayath, Sunil [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000173896846)↗
Initial Efforts Organizing WPNCS SG-8: Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks
The Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety (WPNCS) under the guidance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has over 20 years of experience addressing concerns related to static and transient configurations encountered within the nuclear fuel cycle: fuel fabrication, transportation, reprocessing, storage, and geological disposal. One of the cornerstone activities of the WPNCS is the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), which was established to identify a comprehensive set of criticality benchmark data, evaluate the data, including quantification of overall uncertainties; compile the data into a standardized format, perform sample calculations utilizing modern nuclear data sets and codes utilized in nuclear criticality safety, and formally document the work into a single source of verified benchmark data. Annually, members of the ICSBEP Technical Review Group (TRG) contribute evaluated benchmark data that undergoes comprehensive technical review prior to publication in the ICSBEP Handbook. In the years since the ICSBEP was established, there has been much work to prepare benchmark data to support validation activities in nuclear criticality safety. The 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook contains acceptable benchmark specifications for 5,053 critical, subcritical, or near-critical configurations in 582 benchmark evaluations. Modern benchmark development benefits from decades of experienced international participants, a well-established handbook format, supplementary guides to deal with uncertainty quantification, and a comprehensive review process based upon independent reviews from international experts. The ICSBEP Handbook also contains 838 configurations deemed unacceptable to support criticality safety efforts. They are recorded, with the reasoning for their rejection, to preserve the experimental data, prevent reevaluation of data that are incomplete or contain known errors, and/or to potentially allow future reevaluation of the experiment pending the identification of sufficient data to resolve identified inconsistencies and errors. Users of the ICSBEP Handbook today might notice that the rigor and quality of modern criticality safety benchmarks is much greater than those prepared within the initial decade of the project. Benchmarks with 1s uncertainties in k eff greater than 1% were traditionally rejected unless they were identified as unique experiment types that encompassed materials, fuels, or designs not available from other benchmark experiments. However, benchmarks developed using modern experimental techniques and practices typically have uncertainties on the order of a few tenths of a percent. There have been ongoing efforts to improve the overall quality of previously published benchmark evaluations. Seventy-eight evaluations, containing approximately 600 configurations, have been revised just within the past decade. An additional eleven benchmarks are under revision for updated release in the 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. If some of the historic benchmarks were resubmitted in their current form to the TRG today, they would be rejected due to lack of data, missing components in the uncertainty analysis, or incomplete benchmark model development. The use of historic criticality safety benchmarks that underestimate the total uncertainty, lack properly quantified biases, or provide inadequate benchmark specifications do not sufficiently support modern criticality safety and nuclear data efforts. Although the ICSBEP Handbook is recognized by regulating bodies to support criticality safety, users are required to justify their reasons to ignore historic benchmark data and include additional safety margins within their designs. Discussions were held at the WPNCS 23rd Annual Meeting in September 2019 regarding the aforementioned issues. The resultant decision was to establish Subgroup 8 (SG-8): Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks. The current activities of SG-8 are discussed herein.
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
Noble Gas Transport in the MSRE
This study explores the relationship between the physicochemical parameter known as Henry’s gas constant and gas transport across a two-layer film interface. The investigation utilized the Gibbs free energy, incorporating surface and volume terms to elucidate trends in enthalpy and entropy. Notably, our findings align with experimental data and offer predictive insights into the Henry’s gas constants for helium and krypton, which hold significance for future experiments and theoretical developments. Furthermore, this study enhances the Gibbs free energy theory pertaining to the liquid–gas interface. It underscores the substantial contribution of noble gases in this region to volumetric energy as temperature increases. Additionally, we employed Monte Carlo simulations to analyze the effective thermal neutron multiplication factor, denoted as k eff . Our analysis reveals a linear correlation between graphite density and uniform density as a function of temperature. For the 1D Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) system, we employed the Mole code to conduct heat and mass transfer calculations. These computations enable us to ascertain the distribution of fuel temperature based on coefficients and thermal properties. We also studied delayed neutron precursors during fuel cycling, taking into account the drift of cycling fuel through Mole–Griffin coupling. Our model represents k eff and β eff across various volume flow rates and salinity compositions. Finally, this study leveraged xenon-135 for continuous on-line monitoring of fuel salts to investigate the impact of steady-state xenon-135 on the MSRE and to better understand its distribution. These efforts build upon previous research related to removal processes.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Modeling Continuous Online Refueling with SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 in the EIRENE Novel Molten Salt Reactor Design
The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is a Generation IV advanced fission reactor design in which the coolant, and in some cases the fuel itself, is in the form of liquid molten alkali-halide salts with a fluoride or chloride ionic base. In liquid-fueled MSRs, reactor refueling may be performed online, where fresh fuel salt is added to the core during operation without the need for shutdown periods. Refueling for these reactor designs is typically modeled using either a batch or continuous refueling approach, both of which can be simulated with the SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 code systems. However, the specific manner in which they are implemented can vary depending upon the desired rate of refueling, whether the refueling rate is constant or variable, and consideration of salt drainage for systems where the in-core salt volume is kept constant. In a novel MSR fuel cycle concept termed the “Sourdough” fuel cycle, fuel salt is allowed to “grow” within the core, with excess salt either being transferred to an external holding tank to maintain a constant core volume or diverted to an upper plenum within the core to allow for volume growth. In this work, continuous refueling was modeled in a thermal-spectrum, LEU-fueled, small MSR design operating with the Sourdough fuel cycle using the SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 codes. Two different continuous refueling approaches were simulated, with the performance of each being compared to determine which is most suitable for use with the Sourdough fuel cycle concept.
11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Development of the Well-to-Wake Life Cycle Assessment Model for Marine Fuels in R&D GREET 2025
The Marine analysis capabilities in the 2025 Research and Development Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (R&D GREET) have been updated to incorporate the latest findings from the Fourth International Maritime Organization (IMO) GHG Study.1 To support these updates and enhance user flexibility, the former single marine module used in previous R&D GREET versions has been split into two workbook tabs: The Marine_Fuel tab, which covers the fuel-cycle, and the Marine_Trip tab, which covers the trip-cycle. In the Marine_Fuel tab, fuel cycle results for 39 marine fuels are available—assuming a slow speed diesel engine—and can be seen in Appendix A. However, there are options for changing feedstocks for multiple fuels, ability to view results with or without pilot fuels for fuels such as methanol and ammonia, and carbon capture options. All these combinations make the number of total possible pathways over one hundred. For each pathway, life cycle emission results are divided into feedstock, conversion, and combustion categories, along with pilot fuel supply chain emissions for fuels used in dual fuel engines. In the newly created Marine_Trip tab, users can view the life cycle emissions of using these fuels from a trip perspective. Compared to R&D GREET 2024, 16 new types of vessels are added in R&D GREET 2025. Examples of results assuming the default size for each vessel type are available in Appendix A. Additional information categories on vessels are included such as vessel size, main propulsion type, engine power rating, combustion cycle, etc. based on the Fourth IMO GHG Study. Operational mode of the trip, fuel consumption, and load calculation were updated based on the report. The fuel consumption calculation also incorporates low-load adjustment, speed–power correction, weather correction, and fouling correction factors. Furthermore, fuel consumption in boilers or steam turbines is also added for the first time, besides fuel use in main propulsion engines and auxiliary engines. This effort makes the R&D GREET Marine capabilities more robust than before. Users will be able to estimate fuel consumption more accurately for more diverse choices of vessel categories, vessel sizes, and energy converters.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
Benchmark for Fuel Shuffling and Depletion for Pebble-Bed Reactors
Pebble bed reactors have specific operational characteristics when their fuel-cycle and fueling operations are considered. They are specifically distinguished by other type of nuclear reactor designs by their online fuel recycling scheme, where the fuel elements that have not yet reached discharge burnup can be reloaded and recycled continuously during normal operation. The fuel in a pebble bed reactor is not stationary and stochastically moves through the core once or several times during its lifetime, which allows them to operate without requiring a large excess reactivity hold for the burnup. However, this characteristic of pebble bed reactors introduces challenges in simulation, as each pebble can take many different trajectories through the core, its composition depends on the details of the irradiation history that is unique to its aggregated path through the core. For predicting the safety performance characteristics, such as source term, maximum fuel temperatures and fuel failure rates, etc., it is important to accurately incorporate the movement of pebbles through the core during their lifetime in a multi-physics simulation together with other phenomena. The equilibrium core analysis for pebble bed reactors are performed with multi-physics tools including fuel depletion in a multi pass reload coupled to the fuel movement. Currently, there are only a few legacy multi-physics simulation tools that can implement the pebble flow characteristics and perform equilibrium core analysis for pebble bed reactors. However, there are development efforts on-going under Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Advanced Modelling and Simulation program and also in private industry for including these capabilities into their modelling and simulation tools. Any new development in the modelling and simulation tools needs to be validated by using tools such as experiments, analytical solutions or code-to-code benchmarks. In this work, a code-to-code benchmark for the equilibrium core analysis capability of pebble bed reactors was developed. Multiple cases were identified to capture different fuel cycle strategies that can be used in PBRs. The results of each case are presented in terms of overall equilibrium core characteristics: the discharge burnup; spatial burnup distribution; spatial isotopic distributions; axial and radial neutron flux distributions and power history of fuel elements per pass through the core for both a prototypical pebble bed High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor and a prototypical pebble bed Fluoride-salt cooled High temperature Reactor.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Demand Driven Cycamore Archetypes
Future nuclear fuel cycle options may present advantages over today’s once-through fuel cycle. Nuclear fuel cycle simulation tools assess the performance of those fuel cycles as well as the dynamics of long-term technology transitions. In many nuclear fuel cycle simulation tools, it has historically been the responsibility of the user to manually define facility deployment schemes and all facility parameters. While this is straightforward in simple fuel cycles, transitions from one fuel cycle to another can be more complex. In particular, deployment schemes for supportive fuel cycle facilities beyond the reactor become complex if the analyst desires to avoid gaps in the nuclear fuel and power supply chain during those transition scenarios. As nuclear fuel cycle analysis approaches questions regarding the feasibility and performance of the deployment schemes and technology choices during technology transition, automation of this historically manual process is necessary. The main objective of this work was to develop and demonstrate Cyclus automation capabilities toward key nuclear fuel cycle transition scenarios. While deploying reactors to meet power demand is trivial, and existed in the earliest versions of CYCLUS, automated, predictive deployment and decommissioning of other facilities is more complex. These include mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing, and others. For example, a balanced closed fuel cycle may require ensuring that there is enough fast reactor fuel for their operation and may drive deployment of a fleet of light water reactors. This concern comprises the main challenge that drove the project effort. The Demand-Driven Cycamore Archetype project (NEUP-FY16-10512) aimed to develop CYCAMORE demand-driven deployment capabilities and thereby automate transition scenario definition. The developed software package, d3ploy, in the form of a CYCLUS Institution agent, deploys Facilities to meet the front-end and back-end demands of the fuel cycle. The University of South Carolina and the University of Illinois applied multiple algorithmic approaches to this challenge. This project developed an in situ demand-driven development schedule calculation through non-optimizing, deterministic-optimizing, and stochastic-optimizing algorithms as CYCLUS archetypes and demonstrated these new archetypes in program-supporting fuel cycle transition scenarios. Both objectives were achieved. This report documents the results and deliverables obtained toward these achievements in detail.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Advanced Reactors Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology Program
Based on the higher interest in Advanced Reactor (AR) deployment (e.g., ARDP ) for potential new fuel cycles, the Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Program has begun to evaluate the possible implications of long-term management and final disposition of potential Advance Reactor spent nuclear fuels (SNF) that would be generated in potential advanced reactors. Safely managing and dispositioning the potential future AR SNF, and any other associated radioactive wastes, is the primary focus of this initial preliminary assessment of those. This paper summarizes three primary tasks the Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Program is executing (or collaborating on) related to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle (BENFC) for potential future advanced reactors: 1. Advanced Reactors Spent Fuel and Waste Streams: Strategies for the BENFC This set of activities define a high-level strategy for how to systematically approach, identify, and close research and development (R&D) gaps/potential issues associated with long-term management and final disposition of AR SNF and other possible AR waste streams. This task involves summarizing advanced reactor concepts, their likely SNF and other waste forms, and identifying previous experience with similar materials, for example from DOE-managed SNF, with closely related characteristics to the potential future AR SNF. Technical R&D gaps between the breadth of detailed understanding for safe storage, transportation and disposal of the existing light water reactor SNF fuel cycle (e.g., see NASEM, 2022) and potential future fuel cycles based on advanced reactors would then be identified. 2. Characterization and Packaging Options of Advanced Reactor SNF These activities evaluate characteristics and packaging options for advanced reactor spent fuel forms. The fuel forms are categorized into three types: (1) tri-structural isotropic (TRISO), (2) metallic, and (3) fuel salt. Emphasis is given to TRISO and metallic SNF and additional waste streams from such AR as driven by the near-term anticipated operation of the Xe-100 and the Natrium reactors as advanced-reactor demonstrations1. Preliminary information for the spent-fuel salt discharged from molten-salt reactors (MSRs) is examined to provide a baseline for future efforts. All calculations and assumptions in this work are based on publicly available information. The following characteristics are calculated or estimated for use in the preliminary assessments: SNF volume and mass, radiation/activity levels through time, thermal conditions through time, potential radionuclide source terms, chemical interactions and evolutions, disposal inventories, and waste-form lifetime. Using those characteristics, calculations to determine the applicability of existing canister designs were performed. These evaluations included geometric (e.g., dimension, volume) and mass/weight considerations, known operational approaches and loading procedures, physical and chemical considerations/conditions for storage environments, as-loaded radiation, thermal, and criticality analyses to identify constraints for storage, transportation, and disposal. 3. Back-End Management of Advanced Reactors (BEMAR) The DOE NE-8 organization has defined an Integrated Project Team to evaluate the Back End Management of Advanced Reactors (BEMAR) (includes DOE staff from a range of organizations (e.g., NE-81, NE-82, OCED) and national laboratory technical staff within the DOE NE-81 and NE-82 programs). This BEMAR group works directly with advance reactors developers to assess for the DOE the technical feasibility of storage, transportation, and disposal of AR SNF based on the characteristics provided by the developers to DOE (much of which is proprietary). The BEMAR is also tasked to develop rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates to compare the waste management system for individual advanced reactors to existing light-water reactor management practices. To accomplish this, the BEMAR group is implementing a Systems Engineering approach.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Effects of Target Protium Content on SteadyState Isotope Rebalancing and Protium Removal Distillation Column Operation
• SRNL Fusion Fuel Cycle Research • SRNL Fuel Cycle Tritium Inventory Optimization Approaches • RHINO/Aspen • CODFISH • Direct Internal Recycling • IFE Fuel Cycle Overview • Direct Internal Recycling Applied to IFE • CODFISH Isotope Rebalancing and Protium Removal Column Optimization • RHINO Fuel Cycle Analysis • Conclusions and Future Work
Somers, Alex [Savannah River National Laboratory (↗
High volume packing fraction TRISO-based fuel in light water reactors
We report that for a decade, fully ceramic microencapsulated (FCM) fuel, containing tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel particles in a silicon carbide (SiC) matrix, has been investigated as an accident-tolerant fuel for light water reactors (LWRs). Other examples exist of TRISO-based concepts for LWR fuels with different matrix materials. Previous studies assumed TRISO particle volume packing of approximately 0.44 in SiC (or another) matrix, the highest realistic packing fractions possible with conventional manufacturing. Recent advances in advanced manufacturing have yielded the development and demonstration of a fuel form that consists of conventionally manufactured TRISO particles in a 3D-printed SiC matrix with significantly higher possible TRISO packing fractions (0.5–0.7). This increased uranium loading enhances the viability of using TRISO-based particle fuel forms in LWRs. The viability of high-packing-fraction TRISO-based particle fuel forms in LWRs is assessed from the perspective of fuel cycle length, achievable fuel burnup, reactivity coefficients, and fuel cycle performance. Higher-packing-fraction TRISO-based fuel enables either longer cycle lengths (by ~25% at a packing fraction of 0.55 relative to 0.44) at a constant enrichment or decreased enrichments (by ~25% at a packing fraction of 0.55 relative to 0.44) at a constant cycle length. Studies of different fuel kernel types (uranium nitride, uranium oxycarbide, and uranium carbide) yield similar results, although the cycle length of uranium oxycarbide is shorter than for uranium nitride or uranium carbide (due to the lower density of uranium oxide). This work also characterized the production of 14 C resulting from neutron absorption in 14 N during operation for uranium mononitride fuel kernels; the ratio of 14 C/N was 1–2 at. % at discharge. For the fuel cycle evaluation, the activity of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at 100 and 100,000 years was lower for high-packing-fraction fuels than for conventional LWR fuel. Environmental impact metrics were similar overall, but higher on the front end of the fuel cycle and lower on the back end of the fuel cycle. Reactivity coefficients of higher-packing-fraction TRISO-based fuel were reasonable compared with those of conventional fuels.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]
Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 Technical Note: A New Approach to Fission Reactor Safety, Yu. V. Petrov; 5 Erratum; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 6 Analysis and Modeling of Fission Product Release from Various Uranium-Aluminum Plate-Type Reactor Fuels, R. P. Taleyarkhan; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Applications of a Surveillance and Diagnostics Methodology Using Neutron Noise From a Pressurized-Water Reactor, R. T. Wood, L. F. Miller, and R. B. Perez; DESIGN FEATURES: 36 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 Plant, B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck; 47 System 80+™ PWR Safety Design, C. W. Bagnal, R. A. Matzie, and R. S. Turk; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 58 The MATS Experiments—Mesoscale Atmospheric Transport Studies at the Savannah River Site, A. H. Weber, S. Berman, R. J. Kurzeja, and R. P. Addis; 75 Book Review: Environmental Radioactivity in the European Community 1984-1985-1986, C. A. Little; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 76 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 87 Aging Assessment of BWR Control Rod Drive Systems, R. H. Greene; 100 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 103 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 110 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 129 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 139 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 143 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 128 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 128 16th Biennial ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Operating Experience: Present and Future Technologies—Applying Lessons Learned (Call for Papers); 147 The Authors; 150 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 32; 154 Errata.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Material Control & Accountancy for Molten Salt Reactors (FY2021 Report)
There is significant domestic and international interest, investment, and research and development momentum to pursue advanced nuclear reactor technologies. Molten salt reactor (MSR) concepts display the largest variability in fuel type and design features among the current advanced concepts. MSRs have been proposed with various core designs, sizes (power), and fuel cycles. Salt-fueled molten salt systems represent the only advanced reactor type with fuel that is not in a solid form during operation. These “liquid-fueled” MSRs are unique from perspectives of fuel fabrication, spent irradiated fuel and waste components, licensing, and material control and accountability (MC&A) including the potential of fissile material holdup. The liquid fuel salt is the defining distinction in comparison to other advanced reactors that propose TRI-structural ISOtropic particle fuel pebbles, various coolant options (e.g., molten salts or metals, high temperature gas), or small modular alternatives using solid fuel variants including both light water reactors and non-light water reactors. MSRs are appealing to the nuclear energy industry because of the diverse reactor characteristics they can support including various neutron energy spectra, fueling requirements, fuel cycles, and/or fuel utilization. However, because of the significant deviation and diversity of a salt-fueled system compared to traditional solid fuel light water-cooled reactors (LWRs), the history, regulatory licensing framework, modeling capabilities, and supporting engineering technology are either lacking or, in some cases, nonexistent. Therefore, the research community is actively supporting advanced MSR development on many of these fronts in particular to assist MSR vendors with licensing requirements. ORNL is leading the research and development of respective MC&A approaches for salt-fueled MSRs. This report summarizes the research performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) under the US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Advanced Reactor Safeguards (ARS) program to investigate safeguards and security by design concepts, licensing and regulatory considerations, and dynamic system-level modeling to understand radioisotope concentrations for salt-fueled MSRs. The report builds upon the previous research and literature, identifies the MC&A challenges inherent to a salt-fueled MSR, reviews current regulatory frameworks for LWRs and their applicability towards salt-fueled MSRs, summarizes the status and progress of an MSR dynamic modeling tool, and discusses a prospective MC&A approach based on the Molten Salt Demonstration Reactor (MSDR) model.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
HI-STORM Overpack and MPC-32 Thermal-Hydraulic Model with MOOSE Framework
Nuclear power is a significant source of electricity in the United States, but the average age of nuclear power plants is around 40 years old. The safe management of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is a key aspect of the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Spent fuel dry storage systems are becoming a popular and effective solution in this area, given the absence of a final disposal system. The spent fuel cask system (dry cask method) provides a feasible solution to maintain spent fuel for 60 years before final disposal. Dry cask storage has many characteristics that make it attractive. It fulfills the safety requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) while providing modularity and flexibility to contractors. The HI-STORM overpack and MPC-32 canister are the main parts of the HI-STORM 100 dry cask storage system. These components remove heat from the system using natural circulation, requiring no human intervention. This is the characteristic that provides passive heat removal and low maintenance features in dry cask storage systems. To develop a thermal model for a dry cask storage system, the physics behind the system should be defined clearly. There are two natural circulation loops in the system; circulation of helium cools down the nuclear assemblies in the MPC, while circulation of air cools down the walls of the MPC. This work aims to develop a thermal model of the MPC-32 canister and HI-STORM overpack using the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE). MOOSE is an open-source framework developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) for multiscale, multiphysics simulations. In this study, we will investigate and demonstrate the thermal-hydraulics modeling capabilities of the MOOSE framework, including natural circulation, heat transfer, and porous flow.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]
Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 Technical Note: A New Approach to Fission Reactor Safety, Yu. V. Petrov; 5 Erratum; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 6 Analysis and Modeling of Fission Product Release from Various Uranium-Aluminum Plate-Type Reactor Fuels, R. P. Taleyarkhan; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Applications of a Surveillance and Diagnostics Methodology Using Neutron Noise From a Pressurized-Water Reactor, R. T. Wood, L. F. Miller, and R. B. Perez; DESIGN FEATURES: 36 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 Plant, B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck; 47 System 80+™ PWR Safety Design, C. W. Bagnal, R. A. Matzie, and R. S. Turk; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 58 The MATS Experiments—Mesoscale Atmospheric Transport Studies at the Savannah River Site, A. H. Weber, S. Berman, R. J. Kurzeja, and R. P. Addis; 75 Book Review: Environmental Radioactivity in the European Community 1984-1985-1986, C. A. Little; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 76 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 87 Aging Assessment of BWR Control Rod Drive Systems, R. H. Greene; 100 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 103 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 110 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 129 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 139 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 143 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 128 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 128 16th Biennial ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Operating Experience: Present and Future Technologies—Applying Lessons Learned (Call for Papers); 147 The Authors; 150 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 32; 154 Errata.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 4, October-December 1991]
Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 477 Report on the International Symposium on the Use of Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Operational Safety—PSA '91, S. Chakraborty and M. Khatib-Rahbar; 488 Good Relationships Are Pivotal in Nuclear Data Bases, A. S. Heger and B. V. Koen; 494 Technical Note: The Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel's Evaluation of the Ulysses Space Mission, J. A. Sholtis, Jr., D. A. Huff, L. B. Gray, N. P. Klug, and R. O. Winchester; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 502 The Severe Accident Analysis Program for the Savannah River Nuclear Production Reactors, M. L. Hyder; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 511 A Framework for Selecting Suitable Control Technologies for Nuclear Power Plant Systems, R. A. Kisner; DESIGN FEATURES: 521 Containments for Gas-Cooled Power Reactors History and Status, P.W. Williams; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 537 Indoor Radon: A Natural Risk, N. H. Harley and J.H. Harley; On the Importance of the Atmospheric Parameters in the Fission Products Distribution of a Severe Reactor Accident, M. C. Barla and A. R. Bayulken; Book Review: Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR V, C. R. Richmond; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 555 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 567 Effects of Component Aging on the Westhinghouse Control Rod Drive System, K. Sullivan and W. Gunther; 577 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 580 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 582 Operating U 8 Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 596 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 610 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 614 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 520 Workshop on PC PRAISE: A Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Personal Computer Code for Nuclear Power Plant Piping Reliability Assessment; 536 Fifth Workshop on Nuclear Power Plant Containment Integrity; 624 New OECD "International Information System on Occupational Exposure (ISOE)"; 625 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 625 Eighth Power Plant Dynamics, Control and Testing Symposium; 626 Second Training Course on Off-Site Emergency Planning and Response for Nuclear Accidents; 618 The Authors; 622 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol 32.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗