Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CFR engine”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

66 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Eligibility Assessment of Items in the TA-60 Rack Assembly and Alignment Complex Legacy Storage Yard

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office (NA-LA), documented and evaluated seven structures in the Technical Area 60 (TA-60) Rack Assembly and Alignment Complex (RAAC) legacy storage yard at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or Laboratory) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). This documentation and evaluation was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 800); the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concerning Management of the Historic Properties at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos New Mexico (PA)1; and A Plan for the Management of the Cultural Heritage at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (LANL’s Cultural Resources Management Plan (2017). NA-LA makes the following National Register eligibility determinations: la cuna; the rack transporter (jeep, rack trailer, and steering dolly); the Mexia diagnostic rack; the Mexia device canister; the Mexia device mounting stand; and the Mexia target stand are eligible for listing in the National Register, and the second steering dolly is not eligible for listing in the National Register. This National Register evaluation was completed because LANL proposes to develop a consolidated waste facility in TA-60 next to the former RAAC. Across 3.56 acres, LANL proposes to construct an 8,000-square-foot, pre-engineered waste storage building; a 1,500-square-foot office/warehouse building; and 28,500 square feet of covered storage. The development will also include access control features and fencing, parking spaces, and utilities. Additionally, the Laboratory will continue to use the southern part of TA-60-0017 and reuse TA-60-0086 and TA-60-0324 in the development. The consolidated waste facility will operate as a central accumulation area—storing universal waste, mixed low-level (radioactive) waste, hazardous chemicals, and New Mexico special waste—until the waste can be shipped off site.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Update of Erosion Conditions and Assessment of Mitigation Options for the L-Bar Site

The L-Bar former uranium milling site was remediated and closed per regulations and is now under the long-term stewardship of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE/LM). Since assuming stewardship in 2004, DOE/LM has observed erosion and sedimentation processes at the L-Bar Site that will challenge meeting the design closure criteria in the long term, and therefore erosion control structures were installed in several areas. Portions of these structures were subsequently damaged by summer convective storm events and they are being redesigned. At the request of DOE/LM, Desert Research Institute (DRI) reviewed the proposed redesign plans of the erosion control structures. The purpose of this review is to support DOE/LM decisions regarding mitigation of ongoing erosion processes, including assessing possible repair of the existing erosion control structures, as well as plan for effective long-term site management. This design review is performed in reference to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) standards contained in 40 CFR 192.02 that require containment of residual radioactive material be effective for up to 1,000 years (if achievable, but certainly for 200 years), limit radon release, protect groundwater, and minimize future maintenance. The erosion control structures under review are not subject to the UMTRCA standard directly, but they contribute to the performance of the overall containment system by virtue of their relationship with the large diversion channels bounding the disposal cell. The 11 design drawings included in “Erosion Control Alternatives Analysis, L-Bar, New Mexico, Disposal Site, LTS-111-0043-08-002,” dated January 11, 2019, and listed in Appendix A, and supporting calculations in Weston (2019) are the focus of the review. Additionally, DOE/LM provided supporting data such as a 2018 photogrammetry-based digital elevation model of the site, precipitation records collected from an on-site weather station, and sedimentation records collected at an on-site basin. This assessment includes review of the proposed design to mitigate current site conditions but also addresses site changes between the initial erosion assessment report (Miller et al., 2012) and current conditions. The analysis is at a predesign engineering level and does not include development of hydraulic or sediment transport models. Site precipitation data are included in Miller et al. (2012). The natural conditions of the site, the design of site diversion systems, observed erosion at the site, and predesign engineering analysis are used to develop a holistic view of the challenges to L-Bar Site stability and possible responsive actions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Probabilistic Risk Assessment of a Light-Water Reactor Coupled with a High-Temperature Electrolysis Hydrogen Production Plant

This report details an expansion of the original two generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to a light-water reactor, one for a pressurized-water reactor and one for a boiling-water reactor. The new material in this revision includes a new HES design, direct electrical coupling of the nuclear power plant to the High-Temperature Electrolysis Facility (HTEF), and a smaller 100-MWt HTEF analysis. The results investigate the applicability of the potential licensing approaches, which do not require a full United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing review. The PRAs are generic and include some assumptions. We eliminated many conservative assumptions from the preliminary pressurized-water reactor PRA report using design data for both the HES and HTEF. The PRA results indicate that the 10 CFR 50.59 licensing approach is justified due to the minimal increase in initiating event frequencies for all design basis accidents, with none exceeding 5.6%. The PRA results for core damage frequency and large early release frequency support the use of RG 1.174 as further risk information that supports a change without a full licensing amendment review. Further insights provided through hazard analyses and sensitivity studies confirm with high confidence that the safety case for licensing an HES addition and an HTEF sited 1.0 km from the nuclear power plant is strong and that the placement of a HTEF at 0.5 km is also a viable case. Site-specific information can alter these conclusions.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Test Report for the Regulatory Testing of the Welded Isotek-SFC-W-3 Special Form Capsule

Two prototypes the welded ISOTEK-SFC-W-3 special form capsules (SFCs) of the same design were evaluated to determine if the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 173.469, Tests for Special Form Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials, were met. The results of the special form tests are documented in this test report. This report describes the special form testing activities performed on the two welded ISOTEK-SFC-W-3 capsules. The test units were designated as TU-1 and TU-2. TU-1 was subjected to leak testing, percussion testing, and impact testing. TU-1 was leak tested using the leak rate test specified in 49 CFR 173.469(a)(4)(i). The impact test on TU-1 was conducted according to the requirements in 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(1). The percussion test that was carried out on TU-1 was conducted in accordance with 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(2). TU-2 was subjected to a leak rate test as specified in 173.469(a)(4)(i) and a heat test as specified in 49 CFR 173.469(b)(4). Each test unit was leak tested before and after these respective tests. The leak rate tests performed were helium back-pressure tests and bubble tests, as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.5-2014. The measured leak rates were converted to standard condition leak rates as specified in American Society for Testing and Measurement (ASTM) E 493. The determined standardized leak rates obtained from the test and the calculations for all the test units met the requirements for special form certification. The testing was performed under the direction of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Package Testing Program (PTP).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

A High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel Transportation Concept

The uranium 235U enrichment commonly used in fuel production for U.S. light water nuclear reactors typically does not exceed 5 wt%. In contrast, many of the currently investigated advanced reactor concepts demand fuel with higher enrichments. This includes high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), characterized by a 235U enrichment of 5 to 20 wt%. The necessity of HALEU transportation in the fuel production cycle leads to new challenges caused by various technical and regulatory hurdles. Current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission–approved transportation package designs for UF6 with enrichments above 5 wt% provide relatively small payloads [=116 kg (250 lb)]. Furthermore, in accordance with 10 CFR 71.55, package design activities for fissile material enriched above 5 wt% need to consider water infiltration in the containment as part of the criticality safety evaluations. This study presents a transportation package concept for HALEU advanced nuclear reactor fuel with a significantly higher payload of up to 376 kg (830 lb) of fissile material per package and up to 1881 kg (4149 lb) of HALEU per legal weight truck. The anticipated chemical form of the transported material is UO2 downblended from available highly enriched uranium. The concept utilizes a combination of existing transportation packaging, 18 inner canisters, and a novel basket design that includes a borated aluminum flux trap. Criticality and shielding evaluations; fundamental structural, confinement, and thermal assessments; and studies on package operations are presented. The results of this study build significant confidence in the technical feasibility of a high-capacity HALEU transportation package concept while demonstrating the concept’s potential to meet U.S. regulatory requirements.

Eidelpes, Elmar↗
DOE OSTI2023

Phase Doppler Interferometry for Efficient Cloud Drop Size Distribution, Number Density, and LWC Measurements

Threats to aviation safety as a result of super-cooled large drops (SLD) has been addressed by the FAA rules change (14 CFR Part 25) with the additional icing certification requirement. SLD clouds often consist of bi-modal drop size spectra leading to significant problems in simulating and characterizing these conditions in situ and in icing wind tunnels. Legacy instrumentation for measuring drop size distributions and liquid water content are challenged under these conditions. The large size range measurement problem is addressed with the development of the Phase Doppler Interferometer, Flight Probe Dual-Range (PDI FPDR). The method is described in this report along with the measurement capabilities including the dynamic measurement range and overall working size range. The PDI instrument bases drop size measurements on the light wavelength as the measurement length scale. The light wavelength is a much more robust scale, especially as compared to the light scattering intensity. Additionally, methods for accurately characterizing the sample volume in situ based on measured drop velocity and transit time are reviewed, given the importance of this parameter for merging results and measuring LWC. Droplet coincidence in the sample volume can be problematic so this condition is treated with an innovative signal parsing approach. Measurement examples acquired in the NASA IRT are provided. Measurements of LWC showed good agreement with the Artium Particle Imaging (PI) instrument but diverged from the tunnel calibration results for larger MVD values.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Drop Analysis of a Department of Energy Standard Canister Containing Fort Saint Vrain SNF

DOE manages over 300 types of SNF, many of which are located at the INL site. Managing this large variety of SNF for storage, transportation, and disposal poses a challenge to DOE. The Idaho Cleanup Project and INL are collaborating on the DOE SNF Road-Ready Demonstration (“Road-Ready Demonstration”), which will develop and demonstrate the designs, technology, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE-managed SNF for “road-ready dry storage.” Road-ready dry storage (RRDS) is an SNF management concept in which SNF is packaged into dry, sealed canisters that are then placed in on-site storage in anticipation of later transport and disposition. The forward-looking goal of the Road-Ready Demonstration is to establish the foundation for a large-scale RRDS program at the INL site. One critical aspect of RRDS is the ability to certify the DOE Standard Canister and its associated transportation package in accordance with 10 CFR 71 for offsite transportation. Depending on the SNF type and transportation strategy, DOE Standard Canisters may be required to maintain structural integrity under hypothetical accident scenarios (e.g., drop events). The DOE Standard Canisters have been tested and analyzed under various SNF loading configurations and accident drop events in support of the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and other DOE programs; however, no analysis has yet been completed in support of the recently initiated Road-Ready Demonstration. This paper presents preliminary results from a finite element analysis of the Ø45.7 cm × 4.6 m (Ø18 in. × 15 ft) DOE Standard Canister under the 9 m drop at 80 degrees off-vertical drop scenario considered in previous INL tests and analyses. It considers the Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel loading configuration proposed for the Road-Ready Demonstration, uses updated material properties, and applies the strain-based acceptance criteria established in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code’s Section III, Division 3 rules for storage and transportation spent nuclear fuel containments. This updated analysis is compared to previous DOE Standard Canister drop analyses. Preliminary results from the updated analysis show that certain regions of the containment exceed the allowable limits during the accidental drop event. However, these regions are limited to components performing a non-structural function. While further work on this analysis will be pursued, this analysis serves as the foundation for formal calculations used to support applicable certification efforts of the RRDS system at INL.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Drop Analysis of a Department of Energy Standard Canister Containing Fort Saint Vrain SNF– 24138

DOE manages over 300 types of SNF, many of which are located at the INL site. Managing this large variety of SNF for storage, transportation, and disposal poses a challenge to DOE. The Idaho Cleanup Project and INL are collaborating on the DOE SNF Road-Ready Demonstration (“Road-Ready Demonstration”), which will develop and demonstrate the designs, technology, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE-managed SNF for “road-ready dry storage.” Road-ready dry storage (RRDS) is an SNF management concept in which SNF is packaged into dry, sealed canisters that are then placed in on-site storage in anticipation of later transport and disposition. The forward-looking goal of the Road-Ready Demonstration is to establish the foundation for a large-scale RRDS program at the INL site. One critical aspect of RRDS is the ability to certify the DOE Standard Canister and its associated transportation package in accordance with 10 CFR 71 for offsite transportation. Depending on the SNF type and transportation strategy, DOE Standard Canisters may be required to maintain structural integrity under hypothetical accident scenarios (e.g., drop events). The DOE Standard Canisters have been tested and analyzed under various SNF loading configurations and accident drop events in support of the Idaho Spent Fuel Facility and other DOE programs; however, no analysis has yet been completed in support of the recently initiated Road-Ready Demonstration. This paper presents preliminary results from a finite element analysis of the Ø45.7 cm × 4.6 m (Ø18 in. × 15 ft) DOE Standard Canister under the 9 m drop at 80 degrees off-vertical drop scenario considered in previous INL tests and analyses. It considers the Fort St. Vrain spent nuclear fuel loading configuration proposed for the Road-Ready Demonstration, uses updated material properties, and applies the strain-based acceptance criteria established in ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code’s Section III, Division 3 rules for storage and transportation spent nuclear fuel containments. This updated analysis is compared to previous DOE Standard Canister drop analyses. Preliminary results from the updated analysis show that certain regions of the containment exceed the allowable limits during the accidental drop event. However, these regions are limited to components performing a non-structural function. While further work on this analysis will be pursued, this analysis serves as the foundation for formal calculations used to support applicable certification efforts of the RRDS system at INL.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Next Generation System Analysis Model Recently Added Features and Future Plans - Abstract

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA 1982), established the federal government’s responsibility to accept spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) from waste owners and generators for ultimate disposition. SNF generated by the current fleet of commercial nuclear reactors is being stored at the reactor sites in spent fuel pools (SFPs) and in dry independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). The US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) is developing an Integrated Waste Management Program (IWMP) comprising a suite of options and supporting analyses to enable future informed choices. The IWMP is applying integrated waste management system architecture analysis, system engineering, and decision analysis principles to inform potential future decisions regarding potential nuclear waste management system architectures. Architecture analyses of the IWM system are being conducted to support the future deployment of a comprehensive system for managing nuclear waste that considers all major aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e., transportation, storage, and disposal). The Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM) is an agent-based simulation software tool designed for the express purpose of modeling the IWM system. NGSAM imports data from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Unified Database (e.g., historic assembly information, thermal profiles for assembly heat, at-reactor dry storage loadings) to ensure that the simulation initializes with a realistic representation of the state of commercial SNF in the United States. Recent major enhancements that have been implemented into NGSAM since NGSAM was last presented at the WM2019 conference include: • Tracking of railroad escort and buffer car acquisition. • Addition of heavy haul and barge routes for some sites, as well as support for user-defined inter-modal routes. • Updates to the logic that checks the thermal maps prior to package transport. • Addition of an allocation method that predicts when reactor sites will pack assemblies from their pools for dry storage and allocates packages to those reactor sites in the preceding periods, favoring direct transport packages and reducing the number of packages that reactor sites pack for dry storage at their ISFSIs. • Addition of reactor site family operational limits, which are used to limit the number of loads from the pool and from dry storage at a given reactor site per year. • Support has been added for multiple canister loading maps and packages having multiple compatible transportation overpacks. • Updates in the handling of non-commercial fuel, including a new database containing data to support the updates. • Support for repackaging at reactor sites. • Implementing additional output reports or modifying existing reports. • User edits can now be created and edited via the NGSAM website. • Ability to load packages for dry storage at ISF pools. • Same-type package blending at DOE sites. • Support for multi-mode transloading at reactor sites. These new features have improved NGSAM capabilities and/or improve the user experience with the model and will be discussed in more detail. The initial NGSAM requirements for advanced reactor fuels, reprocessing, treatment, and conditioning are preliminary and are described at a high level in this paper: analysts will provide more specific requirements to the NGSAM team in the future. Additionally, there are many data needs associated with modeling advanced reactors in NGSAM, but many of the data or plans are still in progress and/or yet to be fully defined. However, this document describes an initial exploration of the data relevant to this program. Advanced reactor data will likely require revision as concepts evolve and new considerations are made. This is a technical paper that does not take into account contractual limitations or obligations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). For example, under the provisions of the Standard Contract, spent nuclear fuel in multi-assembly canisters is not an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this paper conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract governs the obligations of the parties, and this paper in no manner supersedes, overrides, or amends the Standard Contract. This paper reflects technical work which could support future decision making by DOE. No inferences should be drawn from this paper regarding future actions by DOE, which are limited both by the terms of the Standard Contract and Congressional appropriations for the Department to fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act including licensing and construction of a spent nuclear fuel repository.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of the 3420 Building Filtered Exhaust Stack Sampling Probe Location: Stack Verification Following Fan and Air Blender Additions

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 3420 Building, which is part of the Physical Sciences Facility (PSF), houses radiological capabilities that results in the requirement that emissions monitoring must be conducted for potential radionuclides in the exhaust air discharge of this building. The air monitoring system is required to conform to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 61 (40 CFR 61) Subpart H, which in turns requires a sampling probe in the exhaust stream to conform to the criteria of American National Standards Institute / Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2011, Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stack and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities. To support the air emissions permit for the 3420 Building on the PNNL campus, stack testing that used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling as a surrogate stack and verification tests of velocity uniformity and flow angle on the retrofitted facility stack was performed. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2011 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%COV. Furthermore, no point in the sampling location may have a gaseous tracer concentration that varies from the mean concentration by more than 30%. Additionally, the flow angle at the sampling location must not be more than 20°. The CFD modeling of the stack, as reported by Recknagle et al. (2018) demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the probe location. The velocity uniformity and flow angle results from the 3420 stack verification tests, performed in October 2020, demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location. The measured velocity uniformity verification test result was 1.4%COV. This value is well within the uniformity criterion, which is that the velocity uniformity be =20%COV. Additionally, this value is well within the criterion that the actual stack measurement must be within 5% of the surrogate stack result of 2.1%COV when all four fans were operating. Additionally, the measured average flow angle at the 3420 stack monitor location was 15.5 degrees. Although this is higher than expected based on the CFD model, the result is =20 degrees, so the criterion is met. Based on these stack verification test results, the reconfigured 3420 Building filtered exhaust stack meets the qualification criteria given in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-2011 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the CFD report (Recknagle et al., 2018) may require additional tests and additional analysis to determine compliance with the standard.

3420 Building↗
DOE OSTI2020

Drop Analysis of the Advanced Test Reactor Fresh Fuel Shipping Container with Heavier Low-Enriched Uranium Fuel Contents

The Advanced Test Reactor Fresh Fuel Shipping Container (ATR FFSC) is a rectangular stainless steel container used for shipping radioactive material. The container is described in the ATR FFSC Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Per the ATR FFSC SAR, the ATR FFSC is designated a Type AF-96 packaging per the definition of 10 CFR §71.4, and was originally designed to transport high enriched uranium (HEU) reactor fuel elements for the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), the Advanced Test Reactor Critical (ATRC) facility, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Reactor (MITR), and the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR). The Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA), Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) is working with the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to develop and qualify new low enriched uranium (LEU) fuels and technologies for use in the ATR, ATRC, MITR, and MURR reactors. The LEU fuel elements will weigh significantly more than the current HEU designs and, combined with their associated Fuel Handling Enclosures for packaging, some configurations will exceed the 50 lbf used in the ATR FFSC qualifying drop tests. There are LEU versions of MITR, MURR, and ATR fuel elements. However, for this evaluation, drop analysis of the ATR FFSC with only the heavier ATR Low Enrichment (LOWE) fuel element is considered in this evaluation because the LOWE fuel element is the heaviest of the considered LEU fuel elements. The ATR HEU fuel element and the ATR LOWE fuel element are identical in every design aspect except for the fuel meat inside the 19 fuel plates. The LEU fuel meats are made using a U-10Mo high-density foil rather than uranium dispersed in aluminum in the HEU fuel elements. The high density of the uranium in the LEU fuel meat increases the LOWE fuel element weight to just under 44 lbf (versus the 22.1 lbf weight of the tested ATR HEU fuel element). ATR fuel elements are placed in a thin-gauge aluminum weldment called a "Fuel Handling Enclosure" during packaging. The Fuel Handling Enclosure is used to cover and protect the element during loading and unloading operations. The ATR Fuel Handling Enclosure weighs about 15 lbf per the drawings in the ATR FFSC SAR and the weight is accounted for in this evaluation. Transporting the heavier LEU fuel elements require evaluation of two issues. The first is the effect of the increased mass of the LEU fuel elements on the survivability of the ATR FFSC package following the requisite drop qualifications. The second is the effect of the increased mass of the fuel plates on the fuel element during the same drops. The ATR FFSC containing an ATR HEU fuel element in an ATR Fuel Handling Enclosure was physically dropped multiple times to qualify the container as a Type AF-96 package. The ATR FFSC SAR describes the drop tests performed with an actual ATR HEU fuel element weighing 22.1 lbf contained in a 14.3 lbf Fuel Handling Enclosure for a total payload of 36.4 lbf. Those drop tests showed that the ATR FFSC maintained containment of the ATR HEU fuel element and the fuel element was not significantly damaged. (Containment herein is not defined as a leak tight but is retention of the radioactive contents.) The purpose of the evaluation is to analytically show that, for a similar set of tests, the ATR FFSC maintains containment of the heavier ATR LOWE fuel element and to assess the damage to the fuel element during the drops. The approach was to create finite element analysis (FEA) models that produce the same results as the physical drops. Those models were then used as the benchmarks for the follow-on analyses using the heavier contents. FEA models of the drops of ATR FFSC using up to a 115 lbf fuel element were run and evaluated. Likewise, drops of a LOWE fuel element weighing 44 lbf in the ATR FFSC were run and evaluated. It is important to note that this report was done at the quality level necessary to be included in a nuclear facility safety basis. However, it is not the intent of this report to conclude the suitability of the ATR FFSC for transporting the heavier payloads. This report only describes the results of the FEA as related to the required drop scenarios. Incorporation of the FEA into the safety basis will be evaluated by the ATR FFSC design authority. The physical drop tests of the HEU fuel element and FEA drop analysis for the LOWE fuel element showed noteworthy damage to the fuel plates. An aluminum protective block was conceived to mitigate the damage. The concept requires the blocks to be placed in the fuel element between the end boxes and fuel plates. Additional FEA drop analyses were performed using the protective block. The addition of the blocks is primarily intended to mitigate the damage to the LOWE fuel element fuel plates. However, FEA drop analyses of the ATR HEU fuel element with the blocks were also performed and included for information.

42 ENGINEERING↗