Results for “Neutron Leakage” — Page 10

DOE OSTI2022

CSEWG Meeting Minutes

Work has been done at LANL to validate various updated evaluations from ENDF/BVIII.1b0 including: Fe, Cu, Si, U, Pu. Continuous energy tables were processed with NJOY2016 and output to ACE files. For non-Pu legacy critical benchmarks, all calculations were within the experimental benchmark uncertainty, with some benchmarks having shown lower bias using ENDF/B-VIII.1b0. In HST systems, ENDF/B-VIII.0 shows reasonable results above the thermal leakage fraction. ENDF/B-VIII.0.1 is doing slightly worse than ENDF/B- VIII.0. b0.2 and it also includes a new 19 F evaluation, so more work is needed to examine its impact. 233 U thermal and intermediate bare and water-reflected benchmarks agree well with ENDF/B-VIII.0. From ENDF/B-VIII.0 to ENDF/B-VIII.0b0.1, HMF-007 C/E are increasing and the new 19 F evaluation is helping the HMF-007 cases containing Teflon which have historically had high C/E. The Pu legacy benchmark suite is within experimental uncertainty with the exception of THOR. The INDEN evaluation followed by LANL gave the lowest mean absolute bias, but it remains difficult to make a determination on which Pu evaluation is the best. INDEN performs slightly better for the JEZEBEL series, while the LANL Pu evaluation is better for THOR and flattop benchmarks. For the PMI benchmark series INDEN outperforms the LLNL evaluation. For the PST benchmark series ENDF/B-VIII.0 and LLNL Pu evaluations are better than the INDEN evaluation. C/E ratios for Jezebel and Godiva reaction rate ratios show all the Pu evaluations are very close to one another, making it again difficult to say which is best. When examining neutron reactor kinetics parameters, each Pu evaluation is once again very close. Each individual Pu evaluation seems to have advantages in their own applications.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Dose Rate Analysis of the WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility

This report describes a confirmatory calculation for a proposed consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) to support the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of the license application submitted by the Interim Storage Partners. The scope of this report is limited to an assessment of the annual dose from direct radiation associated with Phase 1 of the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) CISF and the determination of the minimum controlled area boundary based on the 10 CFR 72.104 limit of 25 mrem annual dose to the whole body. The confirmatory dose rate calculations used the source term and shielding calculation capabilities of the SCALE 6.2.3 computer code system. The calculation method employed in the confirmatory calculations uses a detailed Monte Carlo radiation transport simulation from source to dose rate. This method differs from the two-step method used in the safety analysis report (SAR), which requires determination of the photon and neutron energy and angular distributions on the cask external surface and then the use of this surface source in a new radiation transport calculation to determine dose rate as a function of distance from the storage facility. A simulation was made using the complete site geometry (all casks present) but with only one cask containing source, and a total of 467 independent calculations were performed to obtain the dose rate maps produced by each storage cask. Basic input data and assumptions used in the SAR (e.g., cask design parameters and design basis assembly characteristics) were used in this confirmatory calculation for consistency with the SAR. Local atmospheric conditions for skyshine calculations were simulated using US standard atmosphere data, which describe average air temperature, pressure, and density as a function of altitude. The determined minimum required distances from the WCS Phase 1 CISF to a contour defined by the 25 mrem annual dose limit were approximately 623 m (0.387 miles) in the N-NE direction, 594 m (0.369 miles) in the SSW direction, and 533 m (0.331 miles) in the E-SE direction and the W-NW direction. The annual dose results of the confirmatory calculation are in relatively good agreement with the annual dose values presented in the WCS SAR. The annual dose produced by the Phase 1 CISF at the nearest site boundary, 0.75 miles away from the CISF, was estimated by this study to be approximately 6.02E-02 ± 2.0E-04 mrem, which is significantly smaller than the 25 mrem annual dose limit provided in 10 CFR 72.104. The SAR annual dose rate value for the nearest site boundary was 7.52E-2 mrem, which included 7.73E-03 mrem due to postulated leakage of the FO-, FC-, and FF-canisters. A comparison with the dose rate values reported in the SAR for 16 detector locations, D1 through D16, on the protected area boundary is also included in this report. This comparison shows that the SAR determined higher annual dose values for detectors D1 through D14 by 12% to 45% and lower annual dose values for detectors D15 and D16 by 18% and 8%, respectively, as compared with this ORNL confirmatory calculation. Sensitivity studies have been performed to support a comprehensive review of the application. In these studies, the effects on dose rate of the modeled air volume, density, and humidity were analyzed. The sensitivity calculations showed that the air volume used in the Monte Carlo simulations was adequate and that a larger air volume would not further increase the dose rate due to skyshine contributions. The sensitivity analysis showed that simulation of local atmospheric conditions is important for the accuracy of dose rate estimates at large distances from the facility. Air humidity was demonstrated to have negligible effects on dose rate values for the simulated local atmospheric conditions.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗