Engineering topics

Piet, Steven J.

Publications and source records attributed to Piet, Steven J..

9 records

DOE OSTI2013

Waste Classification based on Waste Form Heat Generation in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles Using the Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT) Model - 13413

This study explores the impact of wastes generated from potential future fuel cycles and the issues presented by classifying these under current classification criteria, and discusses the possibility of a comprehensive and consistent characteristics-based classification framework based on new waste streams created from advanced fuel cycles. A static mass flow model, Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT), was used to calculate the composition of waste streams resulting from different nuclear fuel cycle choices. This analysis focuses on the impact of waste form heat load on waste classification practices, although classifying by metrics of radiotoxicity, mass, and volume is also possible. The value of separation of heat-generating fission products and actinides in different fuel cycles is discussed. It was shown that the benefits of reducing the short-term fission-product heat load of waste destined for geologic disposal are neglected under the current source-based radioactive waste classification system, and that it is useful to classify waste streams based on how favorable the impact of interim storage is in increasing repository capacity. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2013

Waste Classification based on Waste Form Heat Generation in Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles Using the Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT) Model

This study explores the impact of wastes generated from potential future fuel cycles and the issues presented by classifying these under current classification criteria, and discusses the possibility of a comprehensive and consistent characteristics-based classification framework based on new waste streams created from advanced fuel cycles. A static mass flow model, Fuel-Cycle Integration and Tradeoffs (FIT), was used to calculate the composition of waste streams resulting from different nuclear fuel cycle choices. This analysis focuses on the impact of waste form heat load on waste classification practices, although classifying by metrics of radiotoxicity, mass, and volume is also possible. The value of separation of heat-generating fission products and actinides in different fuel cycles is discussed. It was shown that the benefits of reducing the short-term fission-product heat load of waste destined for geologic disposal are neglected under the current source-based radioactive waste classification system , and that it is useful to classify waste streams based on how favorable the impact of interim storage is in increasing repository capacity.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2013

When Is the Simple Radiotoxicity Approach Useful for Advanced Fuel Cycle System Assessments Given the Existence of Complex Performance Dose Assessments?

Engineers often face the general question of which approximations are appropriate for a given analytical task. In particular, when is a simpler model useful if a more complex model also exists? This paper explores this question in the domain of radiotoxicity relative to geologic disposal performance dose assessments. Criterion 1 requires that the simpler approach, radiotoxicity, must be calculated correctly. The concept of ingestion radiotoxic inventories is analogous to the inventory of toxic chemicals in other industries. From a decision analysis perspective, it is also somewhat analogous to the nuclear reactor safety concept of “passive safety.” This paper explains some of the issues in calculating radiotoxicity, motivated by the author’s observations of errors in the literature: not accounting for radioactive progeny, misunderstanding natural “ore,” and focusing on transuranic (TRU) isotopes without adequate attention to actinide decay products. For example, Th/233U fuel cycles do have lower amounts of TRU isotopes than U/239Pu fuel cycles, but that does not necessarily mean lower long-term hazard. Criterion 2 requires that the uncertainties in the more complex approach, performance dose assessments, must raise issues for the assessments’ intended purposes—in which case, radiotoxic inventory may be of assistance until those issues are resolved. Performance dose assessments were developed for, and are legally the way to show, compliance with regulations, but the uncertainties are large. Less obvious is the degree to which dose assessments are applicable to other purposes—comparing fuel cycle options prior to site selection and showing the safety of a fuel cycle and waste management approach to the public. In the last sense especially, performance dose assessments are analogous to probabilistic risk assessments for nuclear reactor safety. The United States lacks a selected consensus site, selected fuel cycle approach (direct disposal versus recycling), and selected waste form. Thus, the paper does not intend to discuss all the issues with performance dose assessments but rather intends to focus on only those performance dose uncertainties that raise issues when comparing fuel cycles. Uncertainties associated with whether a generic geological environment is attractive or a specific location meets requirements are beyond the scope of this paper. Ingestion radiotoxicity correlates with heat, gamma, and inhalation radiotoxicity. Thus, options that are relatively high in ingestion radiotoxicity tend to be high in other parameters. Therefore, reduction in ingestion radiotoxicity means both that the potential source term for release is lower but also that one driving force for release (heat) is also lower. However, the most important time frames differ as heat is mainly an issue in decades and centuries after reactor discharge, but ingestion radiotoxicity is mainly an issue during longer time periods. Ingestion radiotoxicity points to the importance of actinides in long-term waste management, followed by specific fission products such as 99Tc, 129I, 93Zr, 135Cs, and 79Se.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2012

Heterogeneous recycling in fast reactors

Current sodium fast reactor (SFR) designs have avoided the use of depleted uranium blankets over concerns of creating weapons grade plutonium. While reducing proliferation risks, this restrains the reactor design space considerably. This project will analyze various blanket and transmutation target configurations that could broaden the design space while still addressing the non-proliferation issues. The blanket designs will be assessed based on the transmutation efficiency of key minor actinide (MA) isotopes and also on mitigation of associated proliferation risks. This study will also evaluate SFR core performance under different scenarios in which depleted uranium blankets are modified to include minor actinides with or without moderators (e.g. BeO, MgO, B 4 C, and hydrides). This will be done in an effort to increase the sustainability of the reactor and increase its power density while still offering a proliferation resistant design with the capability of burning MA waste produced from light water reactors (LWRs). Researchers will also analyze the use of recycled (as opposed to depleted) uranium in the blankets. The various designs will compare MA transmutation efficiency, plutonium breeding characteristics, proliferation risk, shutdown margins and reactivity coefficients with a current reference sodium fast reactor design employing homogeneous recycling. The team will also evaluate the out-of-core accumulation and/or burn-down rates of MAs and plutonium isotopes on a cycle-by-cycle basis. This cycle-by-cycle information will be produced in a format readily usable by the fuel cycle systems analysis code, VISION, for assessment of the sustainability of the deployment scenarios.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2012

Potential External (non-DOE) Constraints on U.S. Fuel Cycle Options

The DOE Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) Program will be conducting a screening of fuel cycle options in FY2013 to help focus fuel cycle R&D activities. As part of this screening, performance criteria and go/no-go criteria are being identified. To help ensure that these criteria are consistent with current policy, an effort was initiated to identify the status and basis of potentially relevant regulations, laws, and policies that have been established external to DOE. As such regulations, laws, and policies may be beyond DOE’s control to change, they may constrain the screening criteria and internally-developed policy. This report contains a historical survey and analysis of publically available domestic documents that could pertain to external constraints on advanced nuclear fuel cycles. “External” is defined as public documents outside DOE. This effort did not include survey and analysis of constraints established internal to DOE.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2011

User Guide for VISION 3.4.7 (Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation) Model

The purpose of this document is to provide a guide for using the current version of the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation (VISION) model. This is a complex model with many parameters and options; the user is strongly encouraged to read this user guide before attempting to run the model. This model is an R&D work in progress and may contain errors and omissions. It is based upon numerous assumptions. This model is intended to assist in evaluating 'what if' scenarios and in comparing fuel, reactor, and fuel processing alternatives at a systems level. The model is not intended as a tool for process flow and design modeling of specific facilities nor for tracking individual units of fuel or other material through the system. The model is intended to examine the interactions among the components of a fuel system as a function of time varying system parameters; this model represents a dynamic rather than steady-state approximation of the nuclear fuel system. VISION models the nuclear cycle at the system level, not individual facilities, e.g., 'reactor types' not individual reactors and 'separation types' not individual separation plants. Natural uranium can be enriched, which produces enriched uranium, which goes into fuel fabrication, and depleted uranium (DU), which goes into storage. Fuel is transformed (transmuted) in reactors and then goes into a storage buffer. Used fuel can be pulled from storage into either separation or disposal. If sent to separations, fuel is transformed (partitioned) into fuel products, recovered uranium, and various categories of waste. Recycled material is stored until used by its assigned reactor type. VISION is comprised of several Microsoft Excel input files, a Powersim Studio core, and several Microsoft Excel output files. All must be co-located in the same folder on a PC to function. You must use Powersim Studio 8 or better. We have tested VISION with the Studio 8 Expert, Executive, and Education versions. The Expert and Education versions work with the number of reactor types of 3 or less. For more reactor types, the Executive version is currently required. The input files are Excel2003 format (xls). The output files are macro-enabled Excel2007 format (xlsm). VISION 3.4 was designed with more flexibility than previous versions, which were structured for only three reactor types - LWRs that can use only uranium oxide (UOX) fuel, LWRs that can use multiple fuel types (LWR MF), and fast reactors. One could not have, for example, two types of fast reactors concurrently. The new version allows 10 reactor types and any user-defined uranium-plutonium fuel is allowed. (Thorium-based fuels can be input but several features of the model would not work.) The user identifies (by year) the primary fuel to be used for each reactor type. The user can identify for each primary fuel a contingent fuel to use if the primary fuel is not available, e.g., a reactor designated as using mixed oxide fuel (MOX) would have UOX as the contingent fuel. Another example is that a fast reactor using recycled transuranic (TRU) material can be designated as either having or not having appropriately enriched uranium oxide as a contingent fuel. Because of the need to study evolution in recycling and separation strategies, the user can now select the recycling strategy and separation technology, by year.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2010

Filling Knowledge Gaps with Five Fuel Cycle Studies

During FY 2010, five studies were conducted of technology families’ applicability to various fuel cycle strategies to fill in knowledge gaps in option space and to better understand trends and patterns. Here, a “technology family” is considered to be defined by a type of reactor and by selection of which actinides provide fuel. This report summarizes the higher-level findings; the detailed analyses and results are documented in five individual reports, as follows: • Advanced once through with uranium fuel in fast reactors (SFR), • Advanced once through (uranium fuel) or single recycle (TRU fuel) in high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR), • Sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in light water reactors (LWRs), • Sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in molten salt reactors (MSR), and • Several fuel cycle missions with Fusion-Fission Hybrid (FFH). Each study examined how the designated technology family could serve one or more designated fuel cycle missions, filling in gaps in overall option space. Each study contains one or more illustrative cases that show how the technology family could be used to meet a fuel cycle mission, as well as broader information on the technology family such as other potential fuel cycle missions for which insufficient information was available to include with an illustrative case. None of the illustrative cases can be considered as a reference, baseline, or nominal set of parameters for judging performance; the assessments were designed to assess areas of option space and were not meant to be optimized. There is no implication that any of the cases or technology families are necessarily the best way to meet a given fuel cycle mission. The studies provide five examples of 1-year fuel cycle assessments of technology families. There is reasonable coverage in the five studies of the performance areas of waste management and uranium utilization. The coverage of economics, safety, and proliferation resistance and physical protection in the five studies was spotty. Some studies did not have existing or past work to draw on in one or more of these areas. Resource constraints limited the amount of new analyses that could be performed. Little or no assessment was done of how soon any of the technologies could be deployed and therefore how quickly they could impact domestic or international fuel cycle performance. There were six common R&D needs, such as the value of advanced fuels, cladding, coating, and structure that would survive high neutron fluence. When a technology family is considered for use in a new fuel cycle mission, fuel cycle performance characteristics are dependent on both the design choices and the fuel cycle approach. For example, the use of the sodium-cooled fast reactor to provide recycle in either breeder or burner mode has been studied for decades, but the SFR could be considered for once-through fuel cycle with the physical reactor design and fuel management parameters changed. In addition, the sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in LWR could be achieved with a heterogeneous assembly and derated power density. Therefore, it may or may not be adjustable for other fuel cycle missions although a reactor intended for one fuel cycle mission is built. Simple parameter adjustment in applying a technology family to a new fuel cycle mission should be avoided and, if observed, the results viewed with caution.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2010

Investigation of Public Discourse Methods in Energy Policy Decision-Making: A Summary of What You Told Us and What We Learned

The ground is littered with projects that failed because of strong public opposition, including natural gas and coal power plants proposed in Idaho over the past several years. This joint project , of the Idaho National Laboratory, Boise State University, Idaho State University and University of Idaho has aimed to add to the tool box to reduce project risk through encouraging the public to engage in more critical thought and be more actively involved in public or social issues. Early in a project, project managers and decision-makers can talk with no one, pro and con stakeholder groups, or members of the public. Experience has shown that talking with no one outside of the project incurs high risk because opposition stakeholders have many means to stop most (if not all) energy projects. Talking with organized stakeholder groups provides some risk reduction from mutual learning, but organized groups tend not to change positions except under conditions of a negotiated settlement. Achieving a negotiated settlement may be impossible. Furthermore, opposition often arises outside pre-existing groups. Standard public polling provides some information but does not reveal underlying motivations, intensity of attitudes, etc. Improved methods are needed that probe deeper into stakeholder (organized groups and members of the public) values and beliefs (sometimes called /heuristics) to increase the potential for change of opinions and/or out-of-box solutions. The term “heuristics” refers to the mental short-cuts, underlying beliefs, and paradigms that everyone uses to filter and interpret information, to interpret what is around us, and to guide our actions and decisions. This document is the final report of a 3-year effort to test different public discourse methods in the subject area of energy policy decision-making. We analyzed 504 mail-in surveys and 80 participants in groups on the Boise State University campus for their preference, financial support, and evaluations of eight attributes for energy conservation and efficiency, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, hydropower, and renewable energy. All participants saw a 7-person diverse energy expert panel. Some participants attended deliberation sessions; some received a 35-page briefing document that included pros and cons of the different energy options.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2010

HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions

This report examines how the HTGR technology family can provide options for the once through, modified open cycle (MOC), or full recycle fuel cycle strategies. The HTGR can serve all the fuel cycle missions that an LWR can; both are thermal reactors. Additional analyses are warranted to determine if HTGR “full recycle” service could provide improved consumption of transuranic (TRU) material than LWRs (as expected), to analyze the unique proliferation resistance issues associated with the “pebble bed” approach, and to further test and analyze methods to separate TRISO-coated fuel particles from graphite and/or to separate used HTGR fuel meat from its TRISO coating. The feasibility of these two separation issues is not in doubt, but further R&D could clarify and reduce the cost and enable options not adequately explored at present. The analyses here and the now-demonstrated higher fuel burnup tests (after the illustrative designs studied here) should enable future MOC and full recycle HTGR concepts to more rapidly consume TRU, thereby offering waste management advantages. Interest in “limited separation” or “minimum fuel treatment” separation approaches motivates study of impurity-tolerant fuel fabrication. Several issues are outside the scope of this report, including the following: thorium fuel cycles, gas-cooled fast reactors, the reliability of TRISO-coated particles (billions in a reactor), and how soon any new reactor or fuel type could be licensed and then deployed and therefore impact fuel cycle performance measures.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗