ML20080F893
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ML20080F893 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Issue date: | 03/19/2020 |
From: | Tara Inverso Division of Fuel Management |
To: | |
Kallan P | |
References | |
Download: ML20080F893 (2) | |
Text
Proposed Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Objectives
- 3. Existing Spent Fuel Storage Fuel Performance Metrics:
- a. 10CFR72 Requirements
- b. ISG-11 R3
- c. NUREG-1567
- 4. Spent Fuel Storage Expert PIRT Findings:
- a. Fuel Performance PIRT Results
- b. Thermal Modeling PIRT Results
- c. Decay Heat Modeling PIRT Results
- d. Results from PIRT/Workshop on Gross Rupture Definition
- e. Results from Synthesis PIRT/Workshop addressing cumulative impacts of overlapping bounding inputs, assumptions, and uncertainties for assessing fuel performance/gross rupture with thermal modeling
- 5. Spent Fuel Storage Fuel Performance Metrics
- a. Documentation of Historical List of Metrics
- b. Current 400oC Metric
- c. Potential Alternative Metrics:
- i. Possible Alternatives:
- 1. Alternate PCT
- 2. PCT + Stress Analysis like low burnup fuel
- 3. Average Rod Temperature vs. PCT
- 4. Average Rod Temperature on a % of the cladding vs. single point PCT
- 5. Cladding specific metrics for different fuels
- 6. Relax limits for thermal cycling (e.g. 65°C and 10 cycles)
- 7. Possible different CoC criteria for intact vs. undamaged fuel
- 8. Etc.
ii. References to basis documents
- 1. NUREG-2224 Dry Storage and Transportation of HBU SNF
- 2. NRC/ORNL HBU SNF CIRFT Test Results
- 3. HBU Demonstration Sibling Rod Test Program Results
- 4. Etc.
iii. Finalized Consensus Metric(s)
- 1. Regulatory basis for finalized metric(s)
- 2. Possible combination of different metrics for addition defense in depth, e.g. temperature and stress metrics iv. Identification of other limiting canister/cask specific metrics:
- 1. Resin peak temperatures
- 2. Shielding material peak temperatures
- 3. Discuss how these are different in terms of compliance as opposed to generic fuel performance metrics
- 6. Best Practice Evaluation Methodology to Meet the Consensus Metric(s):
- a. Thermal Metrics:
- i. NUREG-2152
Reference:
- 1. Incorporate appropriate sections of NUREG-2152 into the best practices for CFD modeling for the new or existing fuel performance metric ii. Thermal Modeling Uncertainty Discussion:
- 1. Use of best estimate or more accurate decay heat models
- 2. Realistic ambient temperature measurements vs. upper bound assumptions
- 3. Graded approach for mesh convergence test
- 4. Additional ancillary modeling assumptions/inputs (bounding vs. best estimate)
- 5. Impact of cumulative bounding assumptions on modeling results iii. New Additional Considerations:
- 1. If fuel performance metric is changed, what changes needed in thermal modeling assumptions and methodologies
- 2. Differences between PCT vs peak rod average vs. other thermal metrics
- 3. Additional areas for consideration for thermal modeling with different metrics
- b. Stress Metrics:
- i. Identify whether low burnup fuel stress analysis approach is a viable path for high burnup fuel stress analysis ii. Develop a generic methodology approach for vendors to use both a temperature and stress metric for fuel performance assessment
- c. Other (as identified)
- 7. Summary
- 8. References