Engineering topics

Mubayi, V

Publications and source records attributed to Mubayi, V.

4 records

DOE OSTI2012

Markov Model of Accident Progression at Fukushima Daiichi

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami caused loss of offsite power and disabled the emergency diesel generators, leading to a prolonged station blackout at the Fukushima Daiichi site. After successful reactor trip for all operating reactors, the inability to remove decay heat over an extended period led to boil-off of the water inventory and fuel uncovery in Units 1-3. A significant amount of metal-water reaction occurred, as evidenced by the quantities of hydrogen generated that led to hydrogen explosions in the auxiliary buildings of the Units 1 & 3, and in the de-fuelled Unit 4. Although it was assumed that extensive fuel damage, including fuel melting, slumping, and relocation was likely to have occurred in the core of the affected reactors, the status of the fuel, vessel, and drywell was uncertain. To understand the possible evolution of the accident conditions at Fukushima Daiichi, a Markov model of the likely state of one of the reactors was constructed and executed under different assumptions regarding system performance and reliability. The Markov approach was selected for several reasons: It is a probabilistic model that provides flexibility in scenario construction and incorporates time dependence of different model states. It also readily allows for sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of different failure and repair rates of cooling systems. While the analysis was motivated by a need to gain insight on the course of events for the damaged units at Fukushima Daiichi, the work reported here provides a more general analytical basis for studying and evaluating severe accident evolution over extended periods of time. This work was performed at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy to explore 'what-if' scenarios in the immediate aftermath of the accidents.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2012

Markov Model of Severe Accident Progression and Management

The earthquake and tsunami that hit the nuclear power plants at the Fukushima Daiichi site in March 2011 led to extensive fuel damage, including possible fuel melting, slumping, and relocation at the affected reactors. A so-called feed-and-bleed mode of reactor cooling was initially established to remove decay heat. The plan was to eventually switch over to a recirculation cooling system. Failure of feed and bleed was a possibility during the interim period. Furthermore, even if recirculation was established, there was a possibility of its subsequent failure. Decay heat has to be sufficiently removed to prevent further core degradation. To understand the possible evolution of the accident conditions and to have a tool for potential future hypothetical evaluations of accidents at other nuclear facilities, a Markov model of the state of the reactors was constructed in the immediate aftermath of the accident and was executed under different assumptions of potential future challenges. This work was performed at the request of the U.S. Department of Energy to explore 'what-if' scenarios in the immediate aftermath of the accident. The work began in mid-March and continued until mid-May 2011. The analysis had the following goals: (1) To provide an overall framework for describing possible future states of the damaged reactors; (2) To permit an impact analysis of 'what-if' scenarios that could lead to more severe outcomes; (3) To determine approximate probabilities of alternative end-states under various assumptions about failure and repair times of cooling systems; (4) To infer the reliability requirements of closed loop cooling systems needed to achieve stable core end-states and (5) To establish the importance for the results of the various cooling system and physical phenomenological parameters via sensitivity calculations.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2011

Risk-Informing Safety Reviews for Non-Reactor Nuclear Facilities

This paper describes a methodology used to model potential accidents in fuel cycle facilities that employ chemical processes to separate and purify nuclear materials. The methodology is illustrated with an example that uses event and fault trees to estimate the frequency of a specific energetic reaction that can occur in nuclear material processing facilities. The methodology used probabilistic risk assessment (PRA)-related tools as well as information about the chemical reaction characteristics, information on plant design and operational features, and generic data about component failure rates and human error rates. The accident frequency estimates for the specific reaction help to risk-inform the safety review process and assess compliance with regulatory requirements.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2010

AQUEOUS HOMOGENEOUS REACTORTECHNICAL PANEL REPORT

Considerable interest has been expressed for developing a stable U.S. production capacity for medical isotopes and particularly for molybdenum- 99 (99Mo). This is motivated by recent re-ductions in production and supply worldwide. Consistent with U.S. nonproliferation objectives, any new production capability should not use highly enriched uranium fuel or targets. Conse-quently, Aqueous Homogeneous Reactors (AHRs) are under consideration for potential 99Mo production using low-enriched uranium. Although the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has guidance to facilitate the licensing process for non-power reactors, that guidance is focused on reactors with fixed, solid fuel and hence, not applicable to an AHR. A panel was convened to study the technical issues associated with normal operation and potential transients and accidents of an AHR that might be designed for isotope production. The panel has produced the requisite AHR licensing guidance for three chapters that exist now for non-power reactor licensing: Reac-tor Description, Reactor Coolant Systems, and Accident Analysis. The guidance is in two parts for each chapter: 1) standard format and content a licensee would use and 2) the standard review plan the NRC staff would use. This guidance takes into account the unique features of an AHR such as the fuel being in solution; the fission product barriers being the vessel and attached systems; the production and release of radiolytic and fission product gases and their impact on operations and their control by a gas management system; and the movement of fuel into and out of the reactor vessel.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗