Results for “Fuel Cycle” — Page 5

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 2, July-December 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 195 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part III: Chernobyl Source Term Release Dynamics and Reconstruction of Events During the Active Phase, A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 218 Second ANS Workshop on the Safety of Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants, R. A. Bari; 234 Elements of a Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, C. M. Hopper; 243 Rickover, Excellence, and Criticality Safety Programs, R. E. Wilson; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 249 Transient Analysis of the PIUS Advanced Reactor Design with the TRAC-PF1/MOD2 Code, B. E. Boyack, J. L Steiner, S. C. Harmony, H. J. Stumpf, and J. F. Lime; 278 The Hierarchy-By-Interval Approach to Identifying Important Models that Need Improvement in Severe-Accident Simulation Codes, T. J. Heames, M. Khatib-Rahbar, J. E. Kelly, R. P. Jenks-Johnson, and Y.-S. Chen; 290 RELAP5/MOD3 Code Coupling Model, R. P. Martin; 299 Missiles Caused by Severe Pressurized-Water Reactor Accidents, R. Krieg; DESIGN FEATURES: 310 Validation of COMMIX with Westinghouse AP-600 PCCS Test Data, J. G. Sun, T. H. Chien, J. Ding, and W T. Sha; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 321 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characterization for a Bounding Reference Assembly for the Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel, S. D. Kahook, R. L. Garrett, L. R. Canas, and M J. Beckum; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 332 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 335 Reactor Coolant System Blowdown at Wolf Creek on September 17, 1994, J. V. Kauffman and S. L. Israel; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 344 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Oueener; 349 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 320 Symposium on Acceptability of Risk From Radiation—Application to Manned Space Flight; 320 24th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference; 361 Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection— Modern Developments and Tendencies in Radiation Biology; 362 1997 IEEE Sixth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants; 354 The Authors; 360 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 36.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1996

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 1, January-March 1996]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 A Decision Support System for Maintenance Management of a Boiling-Water Reactor Power Plant, J. H. Shen, A. Ray, and S. Levine; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 12 On Prediction of the Ignition Potential of Uranium Metal and Hydride, M. Epstein, W. Luangdilok, M. G. Plys, and H. K. Fauske; 26 An Overview of the Primary Parameters and Methods for Determining Condensation Heat Transfer to Containment Structures, J. Green and K. Almenas; DESIGN FEATURES: 49 Modem Tornado Design of Nuclear and Other Potentially Hazardous Facilities, J. D. Stevenson and Y. Zaho; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 73 1994 Accident Sequence Precursor Program Results, R. J. Belles, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Copinger, B. W. Dolan, J. W. Minarick, and P. D. O'Reilly; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 93 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE) Spring 1997 National Meeting; 94 European Safety and Reliability Association International Conference on Safety and Reliability ESREL ’97; 95 Criticality Safety Challenges in the Next Decade; 96 21st International Symposium on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management; 84 The Authors; 88 Letter to the Editor; 90 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 36.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1996

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 2, April-June 1996]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 97 The Nuclear Community and the Public: Cognitive and Cultural Influences on Thinking About Nuclear Risk, M. A. Meyer; 109 Twenty-Third Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting, D. A. Copinger; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 126 Analysis of a PWR LBLOCA Without SCRAM, Trevor N. Tyler, Rafael Macian-Juan and John H. Mahaffy; DESIGN FEATURES: 139 Vulnerability of Multiple-Barrier Systems, N. C. Lind; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 149 A Study of Wet Catalytic Oxidation of Radioactive Spent Ion Exchange Resin by Hydrogen Peroxide, Xingchao Jian, Tianbao Wu, and Guichun Yun; 157 A Comparison Study and Resolution of Differences Between Emergency Response and Safety Analysis Codes Used at the Savannah River Site, A. A. Simpkins; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 164 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 167 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 172 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 178 American Nuclear Society 1997 Annual Meeting; 178 American Nuclear Society Nuclear Criticality and Safety Division Topical Meeting; 176 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1991

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 1, January-March 1991]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 The Safety Review and Approval Process for Space Nuclear Power Sources, G. L. Bennett; 19 Report on the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting: "The Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities", E. G. Silver; 35 Book Review: Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, Proceedings to the International Centre tor Heat and Mass Processes T. S. Kress; 38 Fast Reactor Technology in the 1990s: A Summary of the 1990 International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, A. E. Levin; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 56 Effects of Chemical Phenomena on LWR Severe Accident Fission Product Behavior, A. P. Malinauskas and T. S. Kress; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 65 Technical Note: Safety Parameter Display Systems—10 Years Later, R. J. Eckenrode; 68 Potential Application of Neural Networks to the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants, R. E. Uhrig; DESIGN FEATURES: 80 Twenty-First DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 91 Impact of an Apparent Radiation Embrittlement Rate on the Life Expectancy of PWR Vessel Supports, R. D. Cheverton, G. C. Robinson, W. E. Pennell, and R. K. Nanstad; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 103 Technical Note: The Impact of Offsite Factors on the Safety Performance of Small Nuclear Power Plants, Yu. D. Baranaev and A. N. Viktorov; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 109 Activities Related to Waste Management, Compiled by E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 118 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 121 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 123 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 140 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 150 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 155 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 157 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1990; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 79 MIT Offers Summer Program on Nuclear Power Reactor Safety; 108 Harvard School of Public Health Offers Several Short Courses; 139 Short Course and Workshop on Nuclear Criticality Safety at University of New Mexico; 160 SCK/CEN Announces Training Course on Emergency Planning and Response; 161 The Authors; 164 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 31

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Modeling a Thermal-Spectrum LEU-fueled Molten Salt Reactor Co-fueled with Thorium in SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2

Interest in the development of advanced nuclear fission reactors for commercial electricity production has risen in recent years, with Generation IV reactor designs offering numerous advantages in safety, efficiency, fuel cycle sustainability, and waste management. In particular, thorium-fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs) are considerably promising for enhancing fuel cycle sustainability in their ability to breed fissile 233U fuel from thorium, a presently untapped and widely abundant resource. A novel MSR fuel cycle concept, the ”Sourdough” refueling and waste management strategy, has previously been demonstrated with a traditional uranium-based fuel cycle in a thermal-spectrum MSR operating with low enriched uranium (LEU) fuel with favorable neutronic performance. However, the ability to use this unique fuel cycle approach with thorium-based molten salt fuels has not yet been studied. In this work, the Sourdough fuel cycle was implemented in a small, thermal-spectrum MSR fueled with high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU) and fertile 232Th for breeding 233U fuel. Relevant neutronic data, including fuel and isothermal temperature feedback behavior, was studied using the SCALE 6.3.1 and Serpent-2 code systems, and keff data was measured during simulated depletion at 400 MWth. The Sourdough fuel cycle concept is shown to perform favorably with a thorium-fueled MSR model, thus warranting further study into its use in other MSR designs.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Chemical Process Safety at TRISO-Based, Metal-Based, and Salt-Based Fuel Fabrication Facilities: Technical Assessment and Guidance Assessment

As part of efforts to prepare for potential and ongoing safety reviews for licensing of advanced non-light-water reactor fuel cycles, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tasked Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to prepare an assessment on the state of knowledge of potential chemical processes at fuel cycle facilities supporting the front end of these fuel cycles, and to assess the associated regulatory guidance. This report provides a technical assessment of chemical process safety considerations to support NRC licensing reviews of fabrication processes for tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) based, metallic-based, and salt-based fuels. The assessments involved collecting publicly available information on the fuel fabrication processes to (i) identify the operational process steps, characteristics and chemicals involved, (ii) identify the physical safety considerations and health safety considerations during licensing reviews of the various process steps, and (iii) collect information to support assessments of severity of accidents and potential mitigative measures to be implemented. The assessment provides a foundational basis on chemical process safety considerations for advanced fuel fabrication activities, although it is recognized that licensing reviews may necessitate design-specific considerations. The specific conditions under which chemical hazards emerge will require process-specific considerations, highlighting the importance of process-informed interpretation. The assessment also determined that exposure guidelines and limits to assess the consequences of acute exposures are limited for some chemicals, although alternative limits and supplementary information from databases or safety data sheets provide sufficient information to evaluate consequences of acute exposures. In addition, it was identified that metallic and salt fuel fabrication processes may involve beryllium, which is an exposure hazard. The regulatory framework for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities, per 10 CFR Part 70 Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, is deemed robust and flexible to address the chemical safety considerations in this report. A review was conducted on various regulatory guidance and technical basis documents. This included reviewing NUREG-1520, Revision 2, Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications – Final Report and the process descriptions in Appendix A of NUREG/CR-6410, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook, to address advanced fuel types. As new fuels will involve process-specific chemical uses, process-specific considerations are provided in this report. Additionally, it is noted that the U.S. Department of Energy protective action criteria database includes Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEELs) for process-specific chemicals. This report provides technical information to support chemical safety assessments of new advanced fuel cycle facilities and identifies technical and safety information to support licensing reviews. No regulatory barriers were identified for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Assessment of Technical Information Needs and Considerations for Front-End Activities for Molten Salt Fuel Types

This report details an assessment of the hazards and safety impacts related to front-end operations of molten salt reactors (MSR) as well as an assessment of existing safety guidance. Publicly available information was evaluated to make recommendations to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for guidance development and information gathering needs. Five different MSR technologies were evaluated along with information from 1960’s about the Atomic Energy Commission programs for the Aircraft Reactor Experiment and Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Primary areas of evaluation include fuel cycle facilities, transportation and at reactor fuel mixing operations up to reactor startup. In general, there was difficulty synthesizing publicly available information due to the early stage of the MSR development and proprietary information associated with the reactor technology companies analyzed. There are a few specific recommendations from this report. One overarching paradigm shift that the NRC needs to evaluate is the possibility of collocating fuel cycle facilities with operating MSRs. Although there is no specific prohibition to this in the NRC regulations, the collocation of the fuel cycle facilities with the operating MSR presents a novel approach compared to the light water reactor baseline. More guidance and research into thorium operations and regulation is needed. The hazards associated with the stability of stored fuel constituents need to be evaluated. Some reactor fuel cycles use beryllium, and its use and the associated hazards need further analysis. NRC-approved designs for transportation packages for shipping molten salt fuels and factory-built and fueled reactors are not available.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Scale effects on core design, fuel costs, and spent fuel volume of pressurized water reactors

The desire to improve the economic competitiveness and deployment pace of nuclear energy through modularization, manufacturing, and series production had led to the development of smaller size reactors. As the standard 17x17 fuel technology is mainly maintained in the pressurized water reactors (PWRs) category, this translates into a lower number of fuel assemblies in the core and sometimes a reduced fuel height. To assess the impact of such scale change in core design on fuel cycle cost and spent fuel volume, a scoping analysis tool is developed based on infinite lattice calculations, leakage, fuel management reduced models, and levelized unit cost of electricity (LCOE) estimate. As such, cost dynamics driven by fuel specific power, burnup, core leakage, feed, cycle length, fuel assembly height as well as uranium market data are captured with consistent set of assumptions and analysis methods. A selection of 5 reactor designs representative of leading PWR developers is assessed and compared. Pursuing higher specific powers and optimal burnups are highlighted as the main fuel cost reduction drivers, nevertheless, practical limitations and opportunities must be evaluated to establish the feasibility of such enhanced fuel operation. In consequence, a detailed core design is performed using SIMULATE3 code for 5 PWR variations including natural and forced coolant circulation modes, two reactor scales, power densities of 73, 112, and 123 kW/l and higher discharge burnups. Design and optimization are performed at the lattice level, for the reflector, and at the core loading level. Satisfactory steady-state operation including power distribution, coolant operating limits, and reactivity requirements are analyzed and reported in this paper. The fuel economics of the detailed core designs confirm the scoping analysis findings. Despite the unlocked power uprates in small PWRs, the achievable burnup for a given fuel specific power requires more enrichment and shorter fuel height results in higher fabrication costs per mass of fuel, which makes scaling down core size a more expensive endeavor on the fuel cycle front. Spent fuel volumes are reported for the PWRs designed in this paper. Furthermore, these volumes are driven by the core average discharge burnup regardless of the scale in consideration. Additional cost and core performance aspects related to heavy reflector gains, fuel-reflector substitution, and disposal cost policy in the U.S. are examined.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

2016 US Petroleum fuels Life Cycle Baseline Data Package

This data package accompanies the report "2016 U.S. Petroleum Fuels Life Cycle Baseline." It contains the openLCA life cycle model that generated the results and an Excel spreadsheet that contains well-to-tank life cycle inventory for all products.

Life Cycle Analysis Options - Fuels↗

DOE OSTI2026

Impact of Time-Dependent Reactor and Sensor Physics on Core Power Synthesis (Rev.1)

Online synthesis of power distribution is critical in the operation and control of nuclear power reactors to ensure that the core is operating within safety margins and to provide essential knowledge associated with the burnup of the fuel. In light-water reactors, power synthesis is achieved by using some a priori knowledge of the state of the reactor core and updating based on the signals coming from in-core sensors—namely, self-powered neutron detectors (SPNDs). This report examines the effects of fuel burnup and sensor degradation on the ability to accurately synthesize the power distribution in a pressurized water reactor (PWR), considering the typical low-enriched uranium (LEU, 3%-5% enrichment) fuel cycle as well as the higher enrichment LEU+ (5%-8% enrichment) fuel cycle. Several modeling tools were used to simulate power synthesis based on the responses of SPNDs, with emitters made out of Rh or V. A representative PWR LEU core was modeled using the Polaris/Purdue Advanced Reactor Core Simulator (PARCS) approach. The Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport 6 (MCNP6) code was used as well to calculate response functions between different segments of fuel to individual SPNDs; this is a crucial parameter for power synthesis. The Oak Ridge Isotope GENeration (ORIGEN) package in the Standardized Computer Analyses for Licensing Evaluation (SCALE) code was used to model the time-dependent isotopic transmutation in the SPND emitters. All these data were fed into a custom code that enacted the point-based iterative method to simulate power synthesis. Developmental work was also performed on high-fidelity SPND models in the GEometry ANd Tracking 4 (Geant4) code, which enables higher-accuracy modeling of the current responses from SPNDs. In this work, five sets of time-dependent power synthesis test cases were conducted. In these test cases, systematic changes in the input conditions enabled an analysis of the effect of (1) slightly inaccurate a priori power distribution assumptions with respect to fuel burnup, (2) highly inaccurate a priori power distribution assumptions with respect to fuel burnup (such that burnup is not included in the a priori assumed distribution), and (3) differences between Rh and V SPNDs in terms of downstream consequences of the transmutation in the emitters and the extended nature of the LEU+ fuel cycle in comparison with LEU. The authors discovered that one may permissibly have slightly inaccurate a priori assumptions of the fuel burnup (such that the level of burnup may be slightly underapproximated or overapproximated by the accumulated burnup in approximately 9.3 full power days), but to not account for burnup at all in the a priori assumptions leads to severe levels of error, approaching 25% at maximum (for LEU). The authors also discovered that V SPNDs are extraordinarily robust in both the LEU and LEU+ fuel cycles considered in this modeling work, whereas Rh SPNDs undergo significant transmutation that can result in large errors in the synthesized power distribution.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

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 OSTI2024

Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates

In 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed the NRC staff to address climate change issues and consider the impacts of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions (NRC 2009b). To implement this direction from the Commission, the staff issued guidance in 2011 and updated guidance in 2014 in Attachment 1 to Interim Staff Guidance COL/ESP-ISG-026 (NRC 2011; NRC 2014). This guidance provides a simpler method than the method described in RG 4.2 Rev. 3, that an applicant can use to meet the plant parameter envelope (PPE) value from the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NR GEIS). NRC staff estimated the 97-year lifecycle GHG emissions from a reference 1000 megawatt electrical (MWe) light-water reactor (LWR) for various activities associated with construction, operation (including uranium fuel cycle), and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and presented the results in Appendix H of the NR GEIS. Appendix H of the NR GEIS includes estimates of direct emissions from construction equipment and emergency diesel engines in a nuclear facility and indirect emissions from workforce vehicular traffic, fuel transportation and the uranium fuel cycle. The NR GEIS Section 3.3 extended the estimates in Appendix H for the installation of two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors on the same site. Scaling factors were used to extrapolate the GHG emissions of a reference 1000 MWe reactor to a two-unit nuclear reactor plant (each reactor unit generating 1000 MWe). GHG emission estimates for building, operation, decommissioning and safe storage (SAFSTOR) for a two-unit nuclear reactor plant would be based on the plant’s physical size, and therefore estimates for these source categories were assumed to be twice the value of the reference 1000 MWe reactor. However, GHG emissions from the fuel cycle (including fuel transportation) were scaled upward by a factor of 3, based on plant efficiencies greater than the 80 percent assumption in Appendix H. Table 1 below shows the PPE emissions for two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors as provided in NR GEIS. The total GHG emissions for two 1000 MWe reactors were calculated as 2,534,000 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 (e)) based on a 97 year GHG life cycle period. The GHG emissions lifetime of 97 years for a reference nuclear reactor includes a 7-year building phase, 40 years of operation, 10 years of active decommissioning, and 40 years of SAFSTOR operations (NRC 2024). Construction equipment and vehicular traffic from workers commute would contribute to the GHG emissions during a 7-year building phase. Uranium fuel cycle, vehicular traffic, fuel and waste transportation, and testing of standby diesel generators would contribute to GHG emissions during the 40-year operations phase. While NRC’s regulations allow up to 60 years of reactor facility decommissioning, Appendix H estimated that most of the GHGs would occur over an estimated 10-year period during which to the licensee would engage in significant demolition and earth-moving activities, as discussed in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Vehicular traffic by the workforce during a 40-year SAFSTOR period would additionally contribute GHG emissions. The carbon footprint for a 40-year SAFSTOR period was separately analyzed from the decommissioning activities as provided in Table YYYY-2 of the staff issued guidance in 2011 (NRC 2011).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Fuel Assembly and Irradiation Parametric Study for Extended-Enrichment and High-Burnup Light-Water Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel in Dry Storage Casks and Transportation Packages

There is an increased interest in operating commercial light-water reactors (LWRs) in the United States with improved economics that would result from longer fuel cycle lengths, fewer and shorter refueling outages, and fewer fuel assemblies requiring storage at the back end of the fuel cycle. To support this, fuel discharge burnups, as well as initial 235 U enrichments, must be higher than those used in current commercial LWRs. The typical upper limit considered for assembly average burnup in this report is 75 gigawatt-days (GWd) per metric ton of uranium (MTU), as opposed to the current typical upper bound of approximately 62 GWd/MTU. The upper limit considered for initial 235 U enrichment is 8 weight percent (8 wt %), as opposed to the current regulatory limit of 5 wt %. The enrichment range from 5 to 8 wt % is referred to in this report as extended enrichment . To investigate the effect of high burnup and extended enrichment conditions on dose rates and burnup credit for dry storage casks and transportation packages, a fuel assembly and irradiation parametric study was performed. The conclusions from this study will assist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in reviewing applications for dry storage casks and transportation packages that contain high-burnup and extended enrichment fuel.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

MPACT Safeguards Modeling: FY25 Update

Sandia National Laboratories develops and maintains several open-source software packages to support material accountancy analyses. This includes the Material Accountancy Performance Indicator Toolkit (MAPIT), the Fissile Facility Flow Modeler (F3M) and the Separation and Safeguards Performance Model Library (SSPM-L). MAPIT is responsible for performing statistical safeguards analyses on bulk and itemized data from nuclear fuel cycle facilities and can operate on real or synthetic data. MAPIT is the only open-source software for such analyses. F3M is a library of modules, built in MATLAB Simulink, that contain pre made blocks to represent different generic fuel cycle processes. These blocks can be used together in a modular fashion to represent and simulate nuclear fuel cycle processes with the goal of improving facility-level accountancy during the design phase. F3M is also an open-source library. Finally, the SSPM-L library is a series of completed models built from F3M. The library includes facility models such as a generic PUREX facility and a fuel fabrication facility. The SSPM-L library is not open source, but is available to collaborators with a relevant use case. These tools include modeling and simulation pipelines to simulate nuclear fuel cycle facilities and the underlying software needed to simulate measurement uncertainty and perform statistical analyses. Together, these tools can perform end-to-end nuclear material accountancy analyses. This report documents the various improvements made to these tools in FY25. Specifically, we added new statistical test, new statistical modeling capabilities, new fuel cycle facility models, and launched a new open-source model component library.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Batch Extraction Studies to Evaluate Trace Element Behavior in PUREX Conditions

The multilab Intentional Forensics Venture is working to identify which stable elements (i.e., taggants) at trace concentrations relative to U would persist throughout the nuclear fuel cycle in a voluntary fuel tagging scheme. A taggant would provide the nuclear forensics community with a “barcode” to help identify nuclear materials found outside of regulatory control. A portion of this project was focused on reprocessing effects and determining which, if any, elements would coextract with U(VI) in standard Pu–U reduction extraction (PUREX) conditions. Elements with a propensity to coextract could, in theory, be used as taggants from a PUREX perspective. Although retention is not a performance requirement, the taggant signature would need to partition predictably from the U stream after the PUREX process to maintain forensic utility. This report documents results from several batch extraction studies with numerous trace elements from HNO 3 (1.5–5 M), with and without U(VI), into 30% tri-n-butyl phosphate (TBP) in kerosene. Extraction and back-extraction tests were used to evaluate nearly 60 elements in surrogate conditions for PUREX, and distribution coefficients (i.e., D-values) for most species were <0.1, indicating few species are likely to co-extract with U through PUREX. Additional studies are needed to optimize sample volumes and dilutions to dial in these low D-values. The D-values (D) were determined for several of the more promising elements, including Re and Se. Ultimately, we conclude that only a limited number of the ~ 60 elements investigated are extractable in the U stream of PUREX, based on measured D values, meaning most candidate elemental taggants would likely be lost at this stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, even when considering a range of acid concentrations.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

DOE OSTI2024

SMR Current Status: Development Needs and Global Perspectives

Defined as nuclear reactors with a power output up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and targeted for multipurpose applications, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been recognized as a very promising, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy source by many countries. At present, more than 80 SMRs are under design, development, demonstration, deployment, and beyond (4D+) phases worldwide. This study focuses on the current world status of SMRs and focuses on the necessary developments to accelerate the process of adopting SMRs as a major energy source globally. SMRs are not a new concept, but they do represent a new vision for older concepts if the challenges inherent within them are mitigated with strategic and realistic solution approaches. The major challenges for SMRs 4D+ like any new reactors are: (a) qualifying the advanced fuel-to-reactor design; (b) supporting rapid scaled/prototypic experimentations; (c) maintaining local and global codes, standards, and licensing; (d) supply chain issues;(e) effective cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel cycle and fuel material transportation, and (f) mitigating financial and environmental risks. These upfront challenges can be mitigated with a synergistic solution approach among the various stakeholders: industry, academia, research, government, and international entities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Presentation: SMR Current Status: Development Needs and Global Perspectives

Defined as nuclear reactors with a power output up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and targeted for multipurpose applications, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been recognized as a very promising, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy source by many countries. At present, more than 80 SMRs are under design, development, demonstration, deployment, and beyond (4D+) phases worldwide. This paper focuses on the current world status of SMRs and focuses on the necessary developments to accelerate the process of adopting SMRs as a major energy source globally. SMRs are not a new concept, but they do represent a new vision for older concepts if the challenges inherent within them are mitigated with strategic and realistic solution approaches. The major challenges for SMRs 4D+ like any new reactors are: (a) qualifying the advanced fuel-to-reactor design; (b) supporting rapid scaled/prototypic experimentations; (c) maintaining local and global codes, standards, and licensing; (d) supply chain issues; (e) effective cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel cycle and fuel material transportation, and (f) mitigating financial and environmental risks. These upfront challenges can be mitigated with a synergistic solution approach among the various stakeholders: industry, academia, research, government, and international entities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2024

SMR Current Status: Development Needs and Global Perspectives

Defined as nuclear reactors with a power output up to 300 megawatts electrical (MWe) by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and targeted for multipurpose applications, small modular reactors (SMRs) have been recognized as a very promising, clean, affordable, and sustainable energy source by many countries. At present, more than 80 SMRs are under design, development, demonstration, deployment, and beyond (4D+) phases worldwide. This study focuses on the current world status of SMRs and focuses on the necessary developments to accelerate the process of adopting SMRs as a major energy source globally. SMRs are not a new concept, but they do represent a new vision for older concepts if the challenges inherent within them are mitigated with strategic and realistic solution approaches. The major challenges for SMRs 4D+ like any new reactors are: (a) qualifying the advanced fuel-to-reactor design; (b) supporting rapid scaled/prototypic experimentations; (c) maintaining local and global codes, standards, and licensing; (d) supply chain issues;(e) effective cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel cycle and fuel material transportation, and (f) mitigating financial and environmental risks. These upfront challenges can be mitigated with a synergistic solution approach among the various stakeholders: industry, academia, research, government, and international entities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗