Results for “fission power system” — Page 10

DOE OSTI2024

Utilizing Advanced Statistics to Determine Anomalistic Conditions in Pebble-Bed Reactors

Pebble-bed reactors (PBRs) utilize hundreds of thousands of fuel pebbles, which continuously circulate through the core, in lieu of traditional fuel assemblies to generate fissions and produce power. The use of unmarked fuel pebbles presents a challenge for international safeguards verification that nuclear material is not being diverted. To ensure pebble diversion is not taking place, new methods for accounting for and monitoring the pebbles should be examined to determine an appropriate methodology for performing bulk accountancy with pebbles. Here, this work examines the use of statistical methods for determining if the reactor is within a declared range of operation by examining the statistical distribution of pebble burnup as they are discharged from the core. Using this methodology, we created a model that detects diversion over 95% of the time, over multiple diversion pathways, if the reactor core maintains a constant power density during the diversion process and only falsely labels a diversion case nominal 2% of the time. For a diversion scenario where the reactor is maintained at a constant power, the statistical analysis can correctly identify if diversion is occurring over 80% of the time; however, nearly 20% of specific diversion pathways are mislabeled nominal. These results provide a basis and framework for exploring the further use of statistical methods to determine where these methods could be most useful and where additional methods, such as machine learning, could be used to capture if diversion is occurring in pebble-bed reactors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1993

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 34, No. 1, January-March 1993]

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 An Integrated Regional Approach To Risk Management of Industrial Systems, S. Chakraborty and R. Stratton; 9 Annual Technical Meeting of the NRC Cooperative Severe Accident Research Program, E. G. Silver; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 13 Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria as Severe Accident Design Criteria and Policy for the New Production Reactor-Heavy Water Reactor, P. T. Rhoads; 20 Proposed Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria for the Heavy Water Reactor-New Production Reactor Containment, K. D. Bergeron, S. E. Slezak, and C. E. Leach; 33 Quasi-Static Core Liquid Level Depression and Long-Term Core Uncovery During a PWR LOCA, Y. Kukita, R. R. Schultz, H. Nakamura, and J. Katayama; 49 LIRA: An Advanced Containment System to Minimize the Accidental Radioactivity Releases, A. Turricchia; 63 Errata to “A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs,” Vol. 33, No. 4; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 64 The Nuplex 80+™ Advanced Control Complex from ABB Combustion Engineering, F. Ridolfo, D. Harmon, and K. Scarola; DESIGN FEATURES: 76 A Scheme for Passive Isolation of the Containment of a Reactor, A. K. Ghosh, V. V. Raj, and K. Kakodkar; 84 Utility Requirements for Safety in the Passive Advanced Light-Water Reactor, T. U. Marston, W. H. Layman, and G. Bockhold, Jr.; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 91 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 103 Testing Deficiencies in Auxiliary Systems Feedwater Systems, J. D. Kueck; 110 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 113 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 115 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 133 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 145 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 150 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 75 Harvard Short Course on Risk: Science, Assessment, and Management; 102 International Conference on Reactor Physics and Reactor Computations; 102 The Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Waste Management [RECOD ’94]; 132 International Symposium on the Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea [MARINA-MED]; 162 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference ‘Technology Integration—Above and Below”; 154 The Authors; 158 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 33.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Nuclear waste reduction: Exploring new pathways one step at a time

In my home country of Venezuela, nuclear energy is not a topic that attracts much attention. The government briefly oversaw some nuclear energy programs during the 1950s, but currently there are no active nuclear power facilities in the country. In fact, the Venezuelan government signed and ratified the treaty of the prohibition of nuclear weapons in 2021, which states that Venezuela has never owned, possessed or controlled nuclear weapons or programs of any kind. When I moved to the United States, however, nuclear energy became an extremely relevant topic. In the 1940s, the U.S. government established and oversaw the Manhattan Project to build atomic bombs for use in World War II. After the war, the government encouraged scientists to use this information on nuclear reactions to develop nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes instead.1 During these early days of nuclear research, there were no formal regulatory standards for nuclear waste management. Policies usually were self-regulated and often created based on existing policies of disposal for non-nuclear waste.2 As a result, there were instances of nuclear waste leaching into the environment and affecting local communities. So, much research has been conducted since then to characterize and store nuclear waste safely and securely.3 I first became interested in nuclear energy during my undergraduate studies when I worked on a project involving ligand synthesis to help extract actinides from nuclear waste. I then studied electrochemistry in molten salt systems for nuclear energy applications during my Ph.D. As I approached graduation, I started looking into national laboratories that have programs involving nuclear energy and waste management. At Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the focus is more on applied processes and how nuclear energy can be innovated to realize next-generation reactor design and technologies. This focus led me to apply for a Seaborg distinguished postdoctoral position at INL, for which I was chosen based on my proposal of a way to improve nuclear waste recycling. To understand my proposal, we must familiarize ourselves with the makeup of nuclear waste. After uranium dioxide is used as nuclear fuel in a reactor, the fuel matrix is then characterized by various fission products, including rare earth elements, alkali and alkaline earths, and actinides. Some of these fission products can potentially be recovered through pyroprocessing, 4 which involves the electrochemical dissolution of the used nuclear fuel in a molten chloride salt mixture at high temperatures. Though some of the fission products can be easily recovered—for example, uranium is reduced onto an inert cathode by applied potentials—numerous other fission products such as rare earth elements are difficult to recover due to their multivalent oxidation states and side reactions.5 To improve the recovery efficiency of rare earth elements specifically, I proposed investigating the fundamental interactions between rare earth elements in the molten chloride salt and their metallic form (Figure 1). The kinetic pathways and the chemical reactions of these elements, which will be elucidated through spectro-electrochemistry at high temperatures, will give insights on how the recovery efficiency can be improved. Although my research focuses on fundamental science, it will benefit the applied process by generating new scientific knowledge and closing the gap for efficient recycling of the waste: one step at a time.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1993

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 34, No. 1, January-March 1993]

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 An Integrated Regional Approach To Risk Management of Industrial Systems, S. Chakraborty and R. Stratton; 9 Annual Technical Meeting of the NRC Cooperative Severe Accident Research Program, E. G. Silver; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 13 Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria as Severe Accident Design Criteria and Policy for the New Production Reactor-Heavy Water Reactor, P. T. Rhoads; 20 Proposed Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria for the Heavy Water Reactor-New Production Reactor Containment, K. D. Bergeron, S. E. Slezak, and C. E. Leach; 33 Quasi-Static Core Liquid Level Depression and Long-Term Core Uncovery During a PWR LOCA, Y. Kukita, R. R. Schultz, H. Nakamura, and J. Katayama; 49 LIRA: An Advanced Containment System to Minimize the Accidental Radioactivity Releases, A. Turricchia; 63 Errata to “A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs,” Vol. 33, No. 4; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 64 The Nuplex 80+™ Advanced Control Complex from ABB Combustion Engineering, F. Ridolfo, D. Harmon, and K. Scarola; DESIGN FEATURES: 76 A Scheme for Passive Isolation of the Containment of a Reactor, A. K. Ghosh, V. V. Raj, and K. Kakodkar; 84 Utility Requirements for Safety in the Passive Advanced Light-Water Reactor, T. U. Marston, W. H. Layman, and G. Bockhold, Jr.; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 91 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 103 Testing Deficiencies in Auxiliary Systems Feedwater Systems, J. D. Kueck; 110 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 113 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 115 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 133 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 145 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 150 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 75 Harvard Short Course on Risk: Science, Assessment, and Management; 102 International Conference on Reactor Physics and Reactor Computations; 102 The Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Waste Management [RECOD ’94]; 132 International Symposium on the Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea [MARINA-MED]; 162 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference ‘Technology Integration—Above and Below”; 154 The Authors; 158 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 33.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Description of FY25 Theory and Simulation Performance Target: Development of an integrated modeling framework for fusion reactor design and assessment

The urgency to deliver fusion power is growing now more than ever, with increasing pressure for both public programs and private companies to meet milestones timelines and overcome significant remaining technical challenges to ensure growth of a nascent fusion industry in time to meet rapidly growing clean energy demands. With incredible advancements in computation and years of investment in fusion model development and validation, integrated modeling is poised to fill a key role in accelerating the timeline to a fusion pilot plant (FPP). Future fusion pilot plants will operate in regimes far beyond current experience, and device design will rely on physics-based prediction and extrapolation. Many concepts will also rely on simulation to assess safety (shielding, tritium management, materials activation and lifetimes), economics and scalability before the decision to build. Importantly, integrated simulation can be used to reveal and solve the complexities of system integration that may otherwise not be apparent in physical components or models developed in isolation. New experimental test facilities that produce relevant conditions to validate and resolve key technical challenges for various subsystems (materials, blankets, fuel cycle, etc.) have been repeatedly called for by the fusion community but are not yet realized. Integrated modeling has an important role in identifying realistic load conditions (thermal, electromagnetic, plasma, neutron and photon loads, etc.) and defining the components and experiments for these test facilities in order to ensure meaningful validation that sufficiently reduces modeling uncertainties and technical risk for the full integrated reactor. The Fusion REactor Design and Assessment (FREDA) SciDAC project is building a component-based integrated modeling framework & data structure to enable self-consistent, multi-fidelity, iterative optimization workflows for the fusion reactor design process. FREDA aims to shorten the time to viable designs by providing a set of flexible workflows to support the various stages of the design process using an integrated model hierarchy, ranging from the simple analytic descriptions to the highest fidelity, theory-based plasma and engineering modeling developed by the fusion and fission communities. These tools are expected to be needed for timely support of FPP design in the milestone program and in the FIRE collaboratives. The plasma simulation backbone of FREDA is IPS-FASTRAN with newly developed coupled Core-Edge Pedestal-SOL (CESOL) workflows, which is being extended to the far-SOL region up to the plasma facing components. FREDA incorporates the FERMI engineering modeling suite and will enable self-consistent evaluation of the thermal shields, limiters, blanket, magnets, and other surrounding structures with predictions of temperatures, erosion, dpa, activation, tritium generation and transport, creep, corrosion, material degradation, etc. Parametric generation of 3D CAD enables rapid iteration of component geometry in response to plasma and loading specifications.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

BWR Spent Nuclear Fuel Acquisition and Testing to Support DOE-NE High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project

The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition (SFWD) within the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) established the Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) campaign to conduct research and development (R&D) activities related to the storage, transportation, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste. The SFWST program was created within SFWD to address issues of extended or long-term SNF storage and transportation. Some near-term objectives of SFWST are to use a science-based, engineering-driven approach to: Support the enhancement of the technical bases to support the continued safe and secure dry storage of SNF for extended periods; Support the enhancement of the technical bases for retrieving SNF after extended dry storage; Support the enhancement of the technical bases for transporting high burnup (HBU) fuel and transporting low burnup fuel and HBU fuel after dry storage DOE-NE, in partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute, developed the High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project to perform a large-scale demonstration and laboratory-scale testing of HBU pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuels (exceeding 45 gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium [GWd/MTU]). Under this project, 25 sister rods—which are rods that have the same design, power histories, and other characteristics—were removed from assemblies at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station and sent to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in January 2016. ORNL performed detailed nondestructive examination (NDE) on all 25 rods. The NDE consisted of visual examinations, gamma and neutron scanning, profilometry and rod length measurements, and eddy current examinations. After completing the NDE, 10 of the sister rods were delivered to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in a NAC International, Inc. legal-weight truck cask in September 2018 for destructive examination (DE). To date, SFWD work has focused on the PWR fuel that is part of the Sister Rod Test program. No boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel has been tested in the program, and the data needs that were identified for the PWR fuel have not been collected for BWR fuel. The goal to obtain six to nine BWR rods and test them at ORNL will support closing this important data gap. BWR fuel comprises approximately 56% of the total fuel assemblies currently in storage at nuclear power plants in the United States. BWR nuclear fuel and cladding designs and manufacturing are significantly different from PWRs. Differences include the following: BWR fuel pellets are larger than PWR pellets; Variations of Zircaloy-2 (including liners) are used instead of the Zircaloy-4 cladding materials used in PWRs; Clad manufacturing and stress-relief processes are different between PWRs and BWRs; The fuel rod dimensions are different because larger rod diameters and thicker cladding are used in BWRs; BWR fuel typically has lower internal rod pressures and sees vastly different operating conditions than PWR fuel (i.e., two-phase flow); BWR assemblies are “canned,” meaning each assembly is surrounded by a metal fuel channel; BWR cladding is often composed of an inner pure Zr liner that has widely different mechanical properties than the Zircaloy-2 alloy and exhibits a stronger affinity for hydrogen; The BWR SNF generally has more total hydrogen in the cladding/liner than typical PWR fuel; The construction of the PWR and BWR assemblies is vastly different; BWR rods are solidly attached to the assembly nozzles and experience a much different vibration and shock load than PWR rods, which are “floating” within a grid system attached to guide tubes, and the rods sit loosely on the bottom end plates. These numerous differences will affect the way the BWR SNF responds under dry storage preparation processes (e.g., vacuum drying) and during transportation. The results collected in the PWR experimental program must be compared with a subset of similar data collected on BWR SNF to establish a technical basis for whether the larger PWR database is sufficient to bound the BWR SNF end-of-life conditions as is currently assumed for several fuel/clad properties. Changes that occur in both fuel types at HBU could exacerbate any mechanical property differences. As the fuel burnup increases, several changes occur that might affect the performance of the fuel, cladding, and assembly hardware in storage and transportation. These changes include increased cladding corrosion layer thickness, increased cladding hydrogen content, increased cladding creep strains, increased fission gas release, and the formation of the HBU structure at the surface of the fuel pellets. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits the current maximum rod-averaged burnup to 62 GWd/MTU due to these changes and the lack of data at higher burnups.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1996

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 3, July-September 1996]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS 181 Attitudes and Practices Regarding Disposal of Liquid Nuclear Waste at Clinton Laboratories in the Very Early Years: A Historical Analysis, S. H. Stow; 202 Off-Site Nuclear Emergency Management in Germany Under the Auspices of the Federal Structure, A. Bayer, S. Bittner, and H. Korn; DESIGN FEATURES: 211 Twenty-Fourth DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, R. D. Porco, and M. W. First; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 222 Explosion in the Tomsk-7 Reprocessing Plant on April 6, 1993, M. L. Hyder, W. G. Lussie, and F. E. Witmer; 234 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 237 Assessment of Spent Fuel Cooling, J. G. Ibarra, W. R. Jones, G. F. Lanik, H. L. Ornstein, and S. V. Pullani; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 256 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 260 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1996; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 210 Tennessee Industries Week; 221 21st International Symposium on The Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management; 259 IAEA Programme of Scientific Meetings for 1997; 270 PSAM 4 (International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management); 265 The Authors; 268 Errata.

05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verifying MCNP Models of the TEX High 240 Plutonium Benchmark

Computational modeling programs are invaluable tools that allow us to understand systems, safely develop new processes, and make reliable predictions about future designs. However, the effectiveness of these codes is limited by the degree to which their parameters match the real world. In the field of nuclear engineering, cross section data is one of these vital parameters. Accurate cross section data on important fissile and fissionable isotopes promotes the design of safer and more efficient fabrication, transportation, storage, and stockpiling of nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, there are knowledge gaps in data on key isotopes. In 2011, a multinational meeting hosted by the US Department of Energy Nuclear Criticality Safety Program ranked the priority of certain cross section data needs. In response, Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) designed the Thermal and Epithermal eXperiment (TEX) series of benchmark experiments. Benchmark experiments are used to validate current cross section data. They validate data by comparing the results of an actual experiment to the predicted results from a computational model. The data a benchmark applies to depends on the isotope and energy range the experiment’s neutron multiplication factor ( k eff ) is most sensitive to. The development and testing of the TEX High 240 Plutonium Benchmark will help validate 240 Pu cross section data. The configuration and materials of this benchmark are designed to be most sensitive to 240 Pu's intermediate energy range (from 0.625 ev to 100 keV ). MCNP® models of the assembly have been developed by LLNL and the results have been written in the final design report. In order for the discrepancies between benchmark models and experiments to be attributed to cross section inaccuracies, the accuracy of the models needs to be verified. The goal of this project is to verify of the results of LLNL's modeling by creating a new set of MCNP models and comparing the results.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Measurement of the U 235 ( n , f ) prompt fission neutron spectrum from 10 keV to 10 MeV induced by neutrons of energy from 1 MeV to 20 MeV

The characterization of fission-driven nuclear systems primarily relies on calculations of neutron-induced chain reactions, and these calculations require evaluated nuclear data as input. Calculation accuracy heavily depends on input nuclear data evaluation accuracy, and thus high precision on the experimental input to the nuclear data evaluation is essential for fundamental quantities like the energy spectrum of neutrons emitted from neutron-induced fission (i.e., the prompt fission neutron spectrum, PFNS). Despite decades of measurement efforts, prior to the measurements described in this work there were only three literature data sets for the 235 U(n,f) PFNS at incident neutron energies above 1.0 MeV considered reliable for inclusion in nuclear data evaluations and no reliable data sets above 3.0 MeV incident neutron energy. In this work we report on new measurements of the 235 U(n,f) PFNS spanning a grid of 1.0–20.0 MeV in incident neutron energy and 0.01–10.0 MeV in outgoing (PFNS) neutron energy. These measurements were carried out at the Weapons Neutron Research facility at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center and used a multifoil parallel-plate avalanche counter target with both a Li-glass and a liquid scintillator detector array in separate experiments to span the quoted outgoing neutron energy ranges. The PFNS results are shown in terms of the energy spectra themselves as well as the average PFNS energy $(\langle{E}\rangle)$ and ratios of $\langle{E}\rangle$ at forward and backward angles. Here, the results are compared with literature data and selected nuclear data evaluations. Generally, the data agree with the ENDF/B-VIII.0 evaluation below 5.0-MeV incident neutron energy and more closely with the JEFF-3.3 evaluation above 5.0 MeV, though no evaluations considered for comparison in this work agree with the data across all of the incident and outgoing neutron energies shown, especially in regions where the third-chance fission process becomes available. Additionally, we show a ratio of the present PFNS results for 235 U(n, f) with a recent and highly correlated experiment to measure the 239 Pu(n, f) PFNS at the same experimental facility and with nearly identical equipment and analysis procedures. Many observations reported in this work are the first of their kind and represent significant advancements for knowledge of the 235 U(n, f) PFNS.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗