Results for “fuel” — Page 20

This document reports the primary coolant system structures temperature distribution for the Primary Coolant Apparatus Test (PCAT) of the MARVEL microreactor. The temperature distributions have been calculated using the RELAP5-3D system code, using one-dimensional approximation, and considering radial heat losses, effects of thermal insulators, and hot spot factors. Sensitivities on the Be inserts dimensions tolerances and heater-to-heater pitch has been also performed, investigating the effects on the NaK and heater cartridge sheath temperatures.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗

DOE OSTI2024

Identify and Assess Technical Challenges in Safeguards Measurements of Spent Advanced Reactor Fuels

Advanced reactor (AR) designs use various nuclear fuel types that can be significantly different than conventional light-water reactor (LWR) fuels, including differences in sizes, compositions, and chemical forms (e.g., oxide, carbide, metal). Nearly all the proposed AR fuels use high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which will have higher enrichments (5–20 wt% 235 U) than LWR fuels (currently limited to <5 wt% 235 U). In advance of the wide use of these new fuel types around the world, international safeguards organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA]) are working with some of the AR vendors to formulate safeguards approaches for these AR fuel cycles. As part of the overall safeguards approach, it is important to identify the potential technical challenges in performing safeguards verification measurements of these AR fuels (both fresh and spent fuels) in advance of the widespread adoption of these new fuel types, because new safeguards technologies can take several years to develop, test, and approve for use. This report documents work performed in fiscal year 2024 based on modeling and simulation to assess the performance of the existing safeguards measurement technologies for irradiated or spent AR fuel elements or items. This work is a continuation of the work performed in fiscal year 2023 that focused on fresh AR fuels. Spent AR fuels have a distinct difference from their LWR counterparts: unlike the spent LWR fuels typically stored in a water-filled pool, some spent AR fuels—such as tristructural-isotropic (TRISO)-based fuels—will most likely be stored in air-filled hot cells. Because most safeguards measurements on spent fuel performed to date have been conducted under water, the air-filled hot cell environment could present unique challenges to safeguards measurements. Fork detector (FDET) and Cerenkov viewing device (CVD) systems have been the two primary instruments used by the IAEA for several decades to measure spent LWR fuel assemblies stored in pools for safeguards verification purposes. Because the lower refractive index of air causes Cerenkov light to be of lower intensity in air than in water, existing CVDs are likely unable to perform safeguards verification measurements for spent fuel stored in an air-filled hot cell, as is the case for the TRISO-based spent fuel elements (e.g., pebbles, graphite fuel blocks). Unlike FDET measurements, CVD measurements do not require fuel be moved, so they are a simpler and faster to take than FDET measurements. The inability to perform CVD measurements on the TRISO-based AR fuel types presents a major technical challenge in the effort to use existing technology to perform safeguards measurements on spent AR fuels. This study was mainly conducted through the modeling and simulation of an FDET or an FDET-like system on five spent AR fuel types, including one metallic fuel type and four TRISO-based fuel types in both pebble and graphite block forms in their respective storage configurations and environments. Because the various AR fuel types have significantly different dimensions, FDET systems must be adapted to accommodate them. Partial defect tests were also simulated in this study to assess the FDET’s ability to detect potential fuel diversions. The FDET measures the fuel’s total passive neutron and gamma emissions. The simulated FDET results from spent AR fuel items are compared against results from a typical spent pressurized water reactor (PWR) assembly. High-purity germanium (HPGe) gamma detector measurements were also simulated for the spent AR fuel types and the PWR assembly because the signature photopeaks have been used in LWR safeguards verifications, although HPGe is usually not used to detect diversions because of the fuel’s self-attenuation effects on those photopeaks. The results indicate that these detectors have significant challenges in performing safeguards measurements of the spent AR fuel items, including incompatibilities between AR fuel items and existing FDETs, lower neutron count rates, lower sensitivities to fuel diversions in certain AR fuel items, and significantly higher interference from a neighboring fuel item when the measurement is performed in air. These results suggest that an alternative technology or significant and timely technology development is needed to perform adequate safeguards measurements of some of these AR fuel items.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Advanced Fuels Campaign Execution Plan

The Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) Execution Plan outlines the strategy, mission, scope, near-term and long-term goals, structure, and organization associated with nuclear fuels and materials research, development, and demonstration activities within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (NFCSC) program. NFCSC has been given responsibility to identify and mature advanced fuel technologies for the DOE using a science-based approach, focused on developing a fundamental understanding of nuclear fuels and materials to drive development of integrated nuclear fuel and materials technology. This science-based approach combines theory, experiments, and multiscale modeling and simulation to achieve a predictive understanding of relevant behaviors ranging from fuel fabrication processes (and their resulting fuel microstructures) through fuel/cladding performance under irradiation (in contrast to more empirical, observation-based approaches frequently used in fuel performance modeling and fuel qualification). The traditional scope of AFC includes the evaluation and development of multiple fuel forms to support two fuel cycle options: once-through and full recycle. The word “fuel” is used generically to include conventional fuels, transmutation targets, and any associated cladding or duct materials. The once-through fuel cycle addresses advanced light water reactor fuels with enhanced performance, extended burnup, and reduced waste generation. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, AFC’s scope expanded to include research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for light water reactor (LWR) fuels with enhanced accident tolerance. Fuel fabrication activities include the development of innovative methods to enhance process efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve control over as-fabricated fuel microstructural properties to achieve desired in-reactor performance. Using modern modeling and simulation approaches, the objective is to predict fresh fuel properties given the feedstock characteristics and fabrication process parameters. The performance-related activities include small-scale, in-reactor, and out-of-reactor phenomenological testing (distinct from, but synergistic with, integral prototypic testing) and extensive, quantitative characterization (focusing on characterization of fuel and cladding materials at the scale of microstructure) both before and after testing. Larger-scale, prototypic experiments are conducted in concert with phenomenological testing to drive a Fuel Development and Qualification program, incorporating a fundamental understanding of fuel behavior performance characteristics. Then, using the tools developed under the productive science-based approach, fuels will be optimized to meet specific performance requirements, thereby minimizing the need to repeatedly perform large-scale, integral experiments over a wide parametric range as a means of experimental exploration. Two significant initiatives are underway within AFC. First, a gap analysis completed in early FY 2019 identified critical irradiation testing needs that are lacking within the national light water reactor (LWR) fuels testbed since the shutdown of the Halden Reactor in 2018. The identified gaps are for instrumented, prototypic testing of LWR fuels, especially under boiling water reactor conditions, ramp conditions, and conditions leading to fuel failure; these needs exist for supporting current LWR fuels and their possible extension to higher burnups, but are especially urgent relative to near-term development and qualification of accident-tolerant fuels. Recommendations that resulted from the Halden Gap Analysis focused on enhancements at Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) and Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) to fill gaps in testing capabilities relative to these needs. Second, a concerted effort to develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to accelerating the development, testing, and qualification of new fuel systems has been initiated. This is highlighted by a test strategy that combines the considerable advances in multiscale, mechanistic fuel modeling of recent years with a MiniFuel separate effects test program in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and a Fission Accelerated Steady-state Testing (FAST) semi-integral accelerated test program in ATR. This approach is being tested/demonstrated using the metallic fuel system, but if successful it is expected to be extensible to multiple fuel types and diverse applications. This document includes an overview of the NFCSC program, a definition of science-based development of nuclear fuels, near-term goals for Advanced LWR fuels (ALFs), and longer-term goals for Advanced Reactor Fuels (ARFs) RD&D. This includes the activities that will be conducted to achieve success toward the grand challenge, as well as the goals and milestones to be achieved over the next few decades of research and development. Long-term goals are based on the DOE Office of Nuclear Energ

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Advanced Fuels Campaign Execution Plan

The Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) Execution Plan outlines the strategy, mission, scope, near-term and long-term goals, structure, and organization associated with nuclear fuels and materials research, development, and demonstration activities within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain (NFCSC) program. NFCSC has been given responsibility to identify and mature advanced fuel technologies for the DOE using a science-based approach, focused on developing a fundamental understanding of nuclear fuels and materials to drive development of integrated nuclear fuel and materials technology. This science-based approach combines theory, experiments, and multiscale modeling and simulation to achieve a predictive understanding of relevant behaviors ranging from fuel fabrication processes (and their resulting fuel microstructures) through fuel/cladding performance under irradiation (in contrast to more empirical, observation-based approaches frequently used in fuel performance modeling and fuel qualification). The traditional scope of AFC includes the evaluation and development of multiple fuel forms to support two fuel cycle options: once-through and full recycle. The word “fuel” is used generically to include conventional fuels, transmutation targets, and any associated cladding or duct materials. The once-through fuel cycle addresses advanced light water reactor fuels with enhanced performance, extended burnup, and reduced waste generation. In fiscal year (FY) 2012, AFC’s scope expanded to include research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) for light water reactor (LWR) fuels with enhanced accident tolerance. Fuel fabrication activities include the development of innovative methods to enhance process efficiencies, reduce waste, and improve control over as-fabricated fuel microstructural properties to achieve desired in-reactor performance. Using modern modeling and simulation approaches, the objective is to predict fresh fuel properties given the feedstock characteristics and fabrication process parameters. The performance-related activities include small-scale, in-reactor, and out-of-reactor phenomenological testing (distinct from, but synergistic with, integral prototypic testing) and extensive, quantitative characterization (focusing on characterization of fuel and cladding materials at the scale of microstructure) both before and after testing. Larger-scale, prototypic experiments are conducted in concert with phenomenological testing to drive a Fuel Development and Qualification program, incorporating a fundamental understanding of fuel behavior performance characteristics. Then, using the tools developed under the productive science-based approach, fuels will be optimized to meet specific performance requirements, thereby minimizing the need to repeatedly perform large-scale, integral experiments over a wide parametric range as a means of experimental exploration. Two significant initiatives are underway within AFC. First, a gap analysis completed in early FY 2019 identified critical irradiation testing needs that are lacking within the national light water reactor (LWR) fuels testbed since the shutdown of the Halden Reactor in 2018. The identified gaps are for instrumented, prototypic testing of LWR fuels, especially under boiling water reactor conditions, ramp conditions, and conditions leading to fuel failure; these needs exist for supporting current LWR fuels and their possible extension to higher burnups, but are especially urgent relative to near-term development and qualification of accident-tolerant fuels. Recommendations that resulted from the Halden Gap Analysis focused on enhancements at Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) and Transient Reactor Test Facility (TREAT) to fill gaps in testing capabilities relative to these needs. Second, a concerted effort to develop and demonstrate a systematic approach to accelerating the development, testing, and qualification of new fuel systems has been initiated. This is highlighted by a test strategy that combines the considerable advances in multiscale, mechanistic fuel modeling of recent years with a MiniFuel separate effects test program in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and a Fission Accelerated Steady-state Testing (FAST) semi-integral accelerated test program in ATR. This approach is being tested/demonstrated using the metallic fuel system, but if successful it is expected to be extensible to multiple fuel types and diverse applications. This document includes an overview of the NFCSC program, a definition of science-based development of nuclear fuels, near-term goals for Advanced LWR fuels (ALFs), and longer-term goals for Advanced Reactor Fuels (ARFs) RD&D. This includes the activities that will be conducted to achieve success toward the grand challenge, as well as the goals and milestones to be achieved over the next few decades of research and development. Long-term goals are based on the DOE Office of Nuclear Energ

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Transition Core Planning and Safety Analyses in Support of LEU Fuel Conversion of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)

The University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR®) is one of six U.S. High Performance Research Reactors (USHPRR), including one critical facility, that is working with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Reactor Conversion Program to convert from highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The M3 Reactor Conversion USHPRR Project objectives include the development of LEU fuel element designs that will ensure safe reactor operations and to maintain the existing experimental performance of each facility. The work is being conducted through many inter-related activities being completed by four Project Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ), Fuel Fabrication (FF), Reactor Conversion (RC), and Cross Cutting (CC). A new type of LEU fuel based on an alloy of uranium-10 wt% molybdenum (U-10Mo) is expected to allow the conversion of those USHPRR, like MURR, requiring higher density fuels. The very-high-density LEU U-10Mo monolithic fuel is currently undergoing irradiation testing and post-irradiation examination under a planned and documented fuel qualification effort. The FQ Pillar will document fuel property and fuel performance data and qualify the fuel for use in these reactors. The FF Pillar is fabricating fuel for ongoing and future irradiation tests, as well as conducting fabrication demonstrations to validate or update preliminary fabrication assumptions. The FF Pillar is also working to develop and install commercial manufacturing capacity with the U-10Mo monolithic fuel to produce prototypic fuel. Working with the RC Pillar at Argonne, MURR has progressed through a preliminary fuel element design using preliminary data for the proposed monolithic alloy of U-10Mo. Analyses were completed in previous work that found for typical equilibrium operations with the preliminary LEU fuel element design, in conjunction with a power uprate to 12 MW and appropriate changes to the MURR Limiting safety system settings (LSSS), MURR will have adequate margins to safety for steady-state operations and postulated transient accidents and will have experimental performance in key locations that meets or exceeds current operations with HEU fuel. The purpose of this work is to develop a sequence of transition cycles that will enable MURR to transition from operation with the reactor core loaded with fresh LEU fuel elements only to typical equilibrium operations with mixed-burnup cores following conversion while meeting operational requirements on safety and experimental performance. It is expected that the use of fresh LEU fuel at conversion and subsequent low burnup of the LEU fuel elements that will initially be available for use following conversion will result in critical control blade positions that will substantially change the axial power distribution in the core and the neutron flux available in key experimental locations relative to equilibrium LEU operations. Given the constraints of MURR safety margins, operational practices, and production and research, a novel method has been developed to identify a transition sequence that minimizes the time MURR operates atypically compared to the current prototypic cycles using HEU fuel. The proposed transition sequence moves quickly to the same sort of equilibrium cycles for the LEU fuel that have already been evaluated in documented preliminary safety analyses. Although shifting the neutron flux peak to the lower half of the core during initial cycles with LEU at 12 MW reduces the experiment performance in some key locations relative to current HEU operations at 10 MW, all LEU cores provide an average performance that meets or exceeds that of HEU. An LEU cycle is reached that meets or exceeds the level of experimental performance predicted for current HEU and equilibrium LEU operations in more than 450 key locations identified by a reactor specialist at MURR by the 23rd cycle following conversion and that afterwards will enable MURR to consistently meet its experimental performance requirements. The proposed transition sequence only requires the fabrication of 34 fresh LEU elements in the first year of operation and does not exceed the anticipated availability of fresh elements that can be produced by the fuel fabricator. By the third year after conversion, 22 fresh LEU elements will be required each year, which is the same as expected for equilibrium LEU operations and the same as current operations with HEU fuel. The proposed transition sequence thus combines a relatively short time period before equilibrium burnup is achieved, a temporary increase of fuel elements needed annually relative to typical operations that are within the production capabilities of the fuel fabricator, and demonstrates comparable experimental performance of the LEU cores relative to current HEU operations. Further measures may be taken to reduce any initial experimental performance penalty even further, where possible, by repositioning certain experiments to leverage the increased performance in the lower axial experimental positions in the initial cycles following conversion or leaving the experiments in the irradiation facilities longer in order to achieve the required neutron fluence. This analysis may require refinement depending on the experimental facilities in use at the time of conversion. Nonetheless, the results presented here, including the experimental performance, core burnup, and critical control blade positions throughout the transition cycles, show that the proposed transition cycle fuel management patterns are consistent with what is expected and desired for MURR operation with LEU U-10Mo fuel. Detailed core power distributions from the neutronics models were also used to evaluate safety margins during steady-state operations for the selected transition cycles and the equilibrium LEU core. It is shown that there are adequate safety margins for both steady-state operations and postulated accident scenarios. For the steady-state operations with the preliminary LEU fuel element design the analysis predicts at least 2.49 MW margin to the onset of flow instability at the LSSS power of 15 MW. Considering the LSSS power is 125% of full license power, the margin to OFI is sufficient. In addition, the critical heat flux ratio at LSSS power is well above the requirement of CHFR > 2.0 from NUREG-1537 for all considered cases. For postulated transient accidents, the minimum margin to the fuel temperature safety limit is at least 109 °C. In summary, the proposed sequence of core loadings for MURR operations following conversion to LEU fuel and a power uprate to 12 MW provides sufficient safety margins for both steady-state operations and postulated transient accidents during a proposed sequence of transition cycles to equilibrium operations. Analysis has shown that there are some local experimental performance penalties during the initial cycles. Although there are local shifts in the experimental performance, on average all LEU cores at 12 MW have equal or higher performance than HEU at 10 MW. Temporary adjustments are being planned that will produce suitable experimental performance during these cycles. The results indicate that for the equilibrium LEU core the experimental performance exceeds that of current HEU operations in all key locations while also demonstrating sufficient safety margins.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Identifying Challenges in Safeguards for Metallic Fuel Fabrication Facilities

As new advanced reactors gain popularity, there is an increasing interest in metallic fuel fabrication for fast reactors. While metallic fuels themselves are not a new idea, as many of the first reactors employed metallic fuels, new designs, compositions, and fabrication methods are appearing throughout the nuclear community. As the interest grows and facilities are constructed, both domestic and international safeguards will need to be heavily involved to support safeguards-by-design (SBD) measures from the start. This work compiles a review of historical and modern fuel types and fabrication methods, fabrication processes, safeguards gaps, and potential safeguards solutions. Metallic nuclear fuel types have been around for many decades and were included in some of the first reactors including the Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR)-I and -II, the Fermi 1 reactor, the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), and the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR). These reactors used various compositions including pure uranium (U) metal, U-zirconium (Zr) alloys, plutonium (Pu)-aluminum (Al) alloys, U-fissium (Fs) alloys, U-Pu-Zr alloys, and U-molybdenum (Mo) alloys [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. These small alloying additions are included to improve the material properties of the pure U metal. The alpha-phase U (stable below 661C) suffers elongation in one direction causing grain boundary cracking and increasing creep rate due to irradiation growth, thermal cycling, and preferential crystal orientation. It is ideal to utilize the gamma-phase U (typically stable above 769C) by adding small amounts of alloying elements such as Zr or Mo to stabilize this phase down to room temperature [3]. Additionally, some research has been focused on U with transuranic (TRU) elements present, typically coming from the used fuel recycling process. Including these elements in fast reactor fuel can aid in the reduction of nuclear waste by burning minor long-lived actinides. However, the additions of TRU elements can cause concerns to arise when trying to fabrication or safeguard metallic fuels. A typical metallic fuel element is shown in Figure 1. Sodium is added into the cladding to create a thermal bond between the fuel slug and cladding wall. The fuel slug is then inserted and the end plug is welded on to the top of the fuel element. A gas plenum is left to create a headspace for gaseous fission products to escape rather than continue to build in the fuel itself [1, 5]. Other fuel element geometries exist as well, such as the Lightbridge twisted cruciform geometry shown in Figure 2 [6]. This design allows for better cooling performance and provides room for fuel rod swelling without impacting the fuel rod diameter. There are many different fabrication methods for metallic fuels, which is one of the many benefits of these fuel types. Many of these fabrication methods are relatively easy and cost-efficient. The most popular fabrication method is injection casting, sometimes called vacuum induction melting (VIM), shown in Figure 3 [4, 8, 9, 7, 10]. This method was largely used for EBR-II fuel fabrication. The injection casting system is contained inside of a vessel consisting of a Y2O3-coated graphite crucible surrounded by an induction coil with ZrO2-coated quartz molds suspended above the crucible. The fuel feedstock is placed inside of the graphite crucible and melted using the induction furnace. The induction furnace utilizes a dual frequency with the high frequency melting the feedstock and the low frequency causing stirring of the melted feedstock to form a homogeneous mixture. The mixture is heated to approximately 1600C in an argon environment. The vessel is evacuated and then the quartz molds are lowered into the graphite crucible containing the molten metal and the vessel is repressurized to inject the metal fuel upwards into the molds. The molds are removed and then shattered to release the fuel slugs. This fabrication method was used to fabricate 39,000 metallic fuel pins for EBR-II. While injection casting has been the most common metallic fuel fabrication method throughout the decades, many other methods have been explored including low-pressure gravity casting, microwave casting, continuous casting, centrifugal casting, coextrusion, and many others [11, 12, 8, 13, 14, 15]. Some of these methods aim to mitigate challenges that arise with americium (Am) volatilization during the casting process for TRU-containing fuel feedstocks, an issue with injection casting. Coextrusion is one of the methods explored at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and has been utilized for the initial fabrication tests of Lightbridge's unique fuels, as well as other metallic fuels with cladding coextruded. In this process, large billets are formed and machined and then inserted into a molten salt bath for approximately 30 minutes. The billets are then loaded into the extrusion press and extruded. This process can be seen in Figure 4 [15].

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Understanding Isomeric Effects on Properties of Aviation Fuels via a Group Contribution Method: Preprint

The molecular composition of aviation fuels, including conventional and sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), significantly influences their performance, safety, and environmental impact. This study examines the effect of isomeric variation for compounds with the same carbon number and chemical family on key fuel properties, focusing on compounds commonly found in conventional jet fuels and SAFs. A group contribution method (GCM) is employed to predict thermophysical and combustion properties, providing an efficient analytical approach to evaluate the contributions of individual compounds to overall fuel mixture behavior. As part of this work, we introduce FuelLib, an open-source Python tool built around the GCM, to calculate individual compound and fuel mixture properties using various mixing rules. Our work evaluates whether the GCM can capture isomeric effects, that are often overlooked in traditional fuel property estimation. This is particularly important for SAFs, which often are composed of a more limited set of compound classes than conventional fuels, making isomeric differences more critical. Two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC) data, which can be obtained from small fuel samples, provides weight percentages of compounds grouped by chemical family and carbon number rather than detailed information about individual compounds. As a result, assumptions must be made when decomposing GCxGC data into functional groups for GCM applications. Using GCxGC data, we show that the FuelLib tool can be used to predict the fuel properties of conventional jet fuels, with validation against experimental data. The provided tool enables researchers to predict fuel properties of candidate fuels and supports the design of new SAFs at both the component and mixture levels. This capability provides a foundation for studying fuel and combustion properties during SAF development, reducing reliance on costly experimental methods and advancing progress toward certification of new SAFs.The molecular composition of aviation fuels, including conventional and sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), significantly influences their performance, safety, and environmental impact. This study examines the effect of isomeric variation for compounds with the same carbon number and chemical family on key fuel properties, focusing on compounds commonly found in conventional jet fuels and SAFs. A group contribution method (GCM) is employed to predict thermophysical and combustion properties, providing an efficient analytical approach to evaluate the contributions of individual compounds to overall fuel mixture behavior. As part of this work, we introduce FuelLib, an open-source Python tool built around the GCM, to calculate individual compound and fuel mixture properties using various mixing rules. Our work evaluates whether the GCM can capture isomeric effects, that are often overlooked in traditional fuel property estimation. This is particularly important for SAFs, which often are composed of a more limited set of compound classes than conventional fuels, making isomeric differences more critical. Two-dimensional gas chromatography (GCxGC) data, which can be obtained from small fuel samples, provides weight percentages of compounds grouped by chemical family and carbon number rather than detailed information about individual compounds. As a result, assumptions must be made when decomposing GCxGC data into functional groups for GCM applications. Using GCxGC data, we show that the FuelLib tool can be used to predict the fuel properties of conventional jet fuels, with validation against experimental data. The provided tool enables researchers to predict fuel properties of candidate fuels and supports the design of new SAFs at both the component and mixture levels. This capability provides a foundation for studying fuel and combustion properties during SAF development, reducing reliance on costly experimental methods and advancing progress toward certification of new SAFs.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Damaged Fuel in the United States - 20325

Throughout the history of commercial nuclear power plant operations in the U.S., many fuel assemblies have lost the capability to perform all of their desired functions. Since they can no longer be handled, stored, or transported in accordance with established regulations, they are classified as damaged fuel. The causes of these failed assemblies are diverse and plant-specific. The majority of these failed assemblies are contained in damaged fuel cans to be used in conjunction with storage and/or transportation systems. These systems have a limited number of slots that can be filled with damaged fuel cans. A damaged fuel can is generally a stainless-steel container that confines damaged spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and is closed at one end by mesh endpoints that allow gaseous and liquid media to escape but minimize the dispersal of gross particulate material. Out of extreme caution, a few reactors have loaded high burnup fuel into damaged fuel cans. Damaged fuel is not licensed for storage or transport in the U.S. because relevant regulations do not specify exactly how to classify damaged fuel. Instead, these regulations license/certify packages that specify approved contents. Damaged fuel must be included among the approved contents to be considered acceptable. In many cases, damaged SNF is encapsulated in damaged fuel cans to ensure it can confine gross fuel particles, debris, and/or damaged assemblies to known volumes within loaded casks. A damaged fuel can may then be utilized in the same way as an assembly in a storage and transportation system. Some storage cask systems utilize top and bottom plugs to confine debris in damaged fuel. The most recent domestic documentation on damaged SNF was published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which used data from U.S. reactors compiled from 1968 to June 30, 2013, to produce Form GC-859, 'Nuclear Fuel Data Survey.' According to this form, there were 136,821 boiling water reactor (BWR) SNF assemblies and 104,647 pressurized water reactor (PWR) SNF assemblies, for a combined total of 241,468. Of these, 4,521 were classified as failed. Some were also disassembled and the fuel rods or pieces of fuel rods combined to make consolidated assemblies. These consolidated assemblies may include damaged fuel or were perhaps consolidated as part of a demonstration project. The GC-859 data includes 2,550 consolidated assemblies containing 0 - 264 entire fuel rods. These consolidated assemblies could be placed in single assembly canisters and stored in the spent fuel pool. For dry storage and transportation, a single assembly canister is generally placed in each damaged fuel can. In addition to the consolidated assemblies, 2,391 un-canistered fuel rod pieces exist, which were removed from 494 assemblies. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗