NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY ANALYSIS OF WET INTERIM

STORAGE POOL USING MCNP5

Gabriel Farkas, Branislav Vrban, Jakub Lüley, Martin Petriska, Vladimír Slugeň

Slovak University of Technology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology,

Institute of Nuclear and Physical Engineering, Ilkovicova 3, 812 19 Bratislava, Slovakia

ABSTRACT

The paper presents main results of criticality safety analysis, performed for the wet interim
storage pool, located at Jaslovské Bohunice site. The interim fuel storage pool was modeled
using the Monte Carlo code MCNP5. Conservative approach was applied and calculation of
keff values was realized for postulated operational conditions in order to evaluate the final
maximal keff values. The requirement of current safety regulations to ensure 5% subcriticality
was met in all investigated cases.

1 INTRODUCTION

Criticality safety associated with the packaging of spent nuclear fuel is a challenging issue for
the scientific and legislative communities involved in efforts to prevent criticality accidents
[3]. Safety issues associated with criticality accidents are assessed through appropriate nuclear
criticality calculations which are usually performed on the assumption that the spent nuclear
fuel is represented by its fresh composition. This is a simple approach, doing unnecessary any
knowledge of the fuel irradiation history. However, it overlooks any possible decrease in the
fuel reactivity due to the changes in fuel nuclide composition. Some of these nuclides are
responsible for the decrease in the reactivity of the spent fuel. Therefore, the inclusion of
these nuclides may result in a considerable improvement regarding criticality safety [6]. In
this work criticality safety analysis of the wet interim spent fuel storage pool was performed.
Two basic loading scenarios were considered for the analysis - full loading of the pool with
non-compact T-12 casks and full loading with compact KZ-48 casks. Gd-II fuel assemblies
(enr. of 4.87 %) at different burnup level were taken into account.
 2 ANALYSIS CODE AND VALIDATION

The criticality safety analysis was based on the determination of the effective neutron
multiplication factor (keff) which is a key parameter for criticality safety. The continuous-
energy Monte Carlo Code MCNP5, version 1.40 and continuous-energy neutron cross section
data ENDF/B-VII.0 were used [7]. Additionally, S(α,β) thermal scattering data for hydrogen
in light water was applied to water and concrete. Code validation was conducted analyzing
the BaW XI (2) case of the Criticality Safety Validation Suite [4, 5]. Based on this validation,
bias and its uncertainty to be taken into consideration for criticality safety analysis are 0.0001
and 0.00142 respectively. The MCNP5 validation calculation was run with 200 active cycles.
This number of active cycles was sufficient to rend the computation uncertainty from the
MCNP5 calculation essentially negligible relative to the given benchmark uncertainty.

Table 1: MCNP5 result for BaW XI (2) case of the Criticality Safety Validation Set.
Calculated keff
Case Benchmark keff
ENDF/B-VII.0
BaW XI (2) 1.0007 ± 0.0012 1.0006 ± 0.00076

The bias and its uncertainty were calculated according formulas:

bench calcul
∆ bias = k eff − k eff

2 2
σ bias = σ bench − σ calcul

where:
∆ bias is the bias,
σ bias is the bias uncertainty derived from the code validation,
bench
k eff - the benchmark (experimental) k eff ,
calcul
k eff - the calculated k eff ,
σ bench - uncertainty of the benchmark k eff value,
σ calcul - uncertainty of the calculated k eff value.

3 EVALUATION METHOD

Conservative approach was applied and calculation of keff values was performed for postulated
operational conditions in order to evaluate the final maximal keff values. All conditions
improving neutron multiplication in the storage pool were taken into account. Selected
conservative parameters are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Selected conservative parameters

Nominal Conservative
No Parameter Tolerance
value value
Average fuel enrichment of fresh
1 4.87 w% ± 0.05 w% 4.92 w%
Gd-II fuel assembly
2 Gd2O3 ratio in the fuel 3.35 w% ± 0.15 w% 3.2 w%
3 Uranium mass in the FA 126.3 kg ± 1.9 kg 128.2 kg
Boron content of NEUTRONIT
4 1.05 – 1.2 % 1.05 %
steel of the compact grid
Coolant temperature in the case of
5 50 °C 4 °C
compact loading using KZ-48
Coolant temperature in the case of
6 50 °C 109 °C
non-compact loading using T-12

The maximal effective multiplication factor k effmax was evaluated as a sum of the calculated
conservative keff, the systematic error ∆ bias , and the combined uncertainty multiplied by 1.645
which is the one-sided tolerance limit factor for a normal distribution at 95% probability.

k effmax = k effconser + ∆ bias + 1.645 σ bench

2 2
+ σ calcul 2
+ σ conser

where:
conser
k eff is the calculated conservative k eff ,
σ conser - uncertainty of the calculated conservative k eff .

4 CALCULATION MODEL

The following detailed models were developed in the MCNP5 for criticality safety analysis:
• Interim storage pool model loaded with compact KZ-48 casks, Figure 7, 10, 11.
• Interim storage pool model loaded with non-compact T-12 casks, Figure 8, 12, 13.

MCNP model of the wet interim storage pool (Fig. 9) consists of one pool having concrete
wall and water as coolant, loaded either with compact KZ-48 cask (Fig. 1, 3, 5) or non-
compact T-12 casks (Fig. 2, 4, 6), depending on investigated scenario. Main characteristics of
the given storage casks are listed in Tab. 3 and the storage pool parameters in Tab. 4. Created
model of the Gd-II type (4.87%) fuel assembly consists of fuel rods, spacers, supporting grid,
head, and bottom part. Regarding material characterization, fuel isotopic composition was
calculated for 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 MWd/kgHM burnup levels.
Table 3: Main characteristics of storage casks
KZ-48 T-12
Characteristic compact non-compact
Lattice pitch [mm] 168 225
Capacity 48 30
boron absorption
Tubes no absorption tubes
tubes
In use yes no

Fig.1: Compact KZ-48 cask Fig.2: Non-compact T-12 cask

Fig.3: Compact KZ-48 cask – real view Fig.4: Non-compact T-12 cask – real view
Absorption Spent FAs Spent FAs
tube

Fig. 5: MCNP model of KZ-48 compact cask Fig. 6: MCNP model of T-12 non-compact cask
Table 4: Construction and operational characteristics of the Interim Storage
Max. projected storage capacity 1700 tU, 14 112 FAs
Max. coolant temperature 50 °C
Pool dimensions 23,4 x 8,4 x 7,2 m
Number of casks in the pool 98/KZ-48 or 56/T-12

Fig.7: Storage pool with compact KZ-48 casks Fig.8: Storage pool with non-compact T-12 casks
 Hydrostopper Transport corridor

Poll system
3 in operation + 1 reserve

Fig. 9: Disposition of wet interim storage pool at J. Bohunice site

Hydrostopper Concrete wall Compact KZ-48 casks Coolant

Fig. 10: MCNP model of the interim storage pool loaded with KZ-48 – horizntal section
(grid dimension: 7x14, full capacity: 98 KZ-48, 4704 spent FAs)
 Water surface Coolant Air Upper boundary
Vzduch

Concrete wall KZ-48 casks Lower boundary

Fig. 11: MCNP model of the interim storage pool loaded with KZ-48 – vertical section

Hydrostopper Concrete wall T-12 casks Coolant

Fig. 12: MCNP model of the interim storage pool loaded with T-12 – horizntal section
(grid dimension: 2x2x14, full capacity: 56 KZ-48, 1680 spent FAs)
 Water surface Upper boundary
Coolant Air
Vzduch

Concrete wall T-12 casks

Lower boundary

Fig. 13: MCNP model of the interim storage pool loaded with T-12 – vertical section

5 RESULTS

Concerning criticality safety analysis of the wet interim storage pool, the following results
were obtained.

Table 5: Results for loading with compact KZ-48 casks at normal operational parameters.
Coolant Deviation from
Burnup conser
k eff σ conser max
k eff
Cask temp. the limit value
[MWd/kgHM]
[°C] [%]
10 0,77856 0,00006 0,78104 -17,8
20 0,77197 0,00006 0,77445 -18,5
30 0,70977 0,00006 0,71225 -25,0
KZ-48 50 40 0,72549 0,00006 0,72797 -23,4
45 0,69208 0,00005 0,69455 -26,9
50 0,73365 0,00006 0,73613 -22,5
60 0,72317 0,00006 0,72565 -23,6
Table 6: Results for loading with compact KZ-48 casks at conservative parameters.
Coolant Deviation from the
Burnup conser
k eff σ conser max
k eff
Cask temp. limit value
[MWd/kgHM]
[°C] [%]
10 0,78266 0,00006 0,78514 -17,4
20 0,77638 0,00006 0,77886 -18,0
30 0,71312 0,00006 0,71560 -24,7
KZ-48 4 40 0,72942 0,00006 0,73190 -23,0
45 0,69519 0,00005 0,69766 -26,6
50 0,73768 0,00006 0,74016 -22,1
60 0,7272 0,00006 0,72968 -23,2

Table 7: Results for loading with non-compact T-12 casks at normal operational
parameters.
Coolant Deviation from the
Burnup conser
k eff σ conser max
k eff
Cask temp. limit value
[MWd/kgHM]
[°C] [%]
10 0,78105 0,00005 0,78352 -17,5
20 0,78716 0,00005 0,78963 -16,9
30 0,69454 0,00005 0,69701 -26,6
T-12 50 40 0,73203 0,00005 0,73450 -22,7
45 0,67590 0,00005 0,67837 -28,6
50 0,74674 0,00005 0,74921 -21,1
60 0,73790 0,00005 0,74037 -22,1

Table 8: Results for loading with non-compact T-12 casks at conservative parameters.
Coolant Deviation from the
Burnup conser
k eff σ conser max
k eff
Cask temp. limit value
[MWd/kgHM]
[°C] [%]
10 0,80553 0,00005 0,80800 -14,9
20 0,81310 0,00005 0,81557 -14,2
30 0,71693 0,00005 0,71940 -24,3
T-12 109 40 0,75738 0,00005 0,75985 -20,0
45 0,69875 0,00005 0,70122 -26,2
50 0,77337 0,00005 0,77584 -18,3
60 0,76462 0,00005 0,76709 -19,3
 6 CONCLUSION

Criticality issues associated with compact and non-compact loading of wet interim storage
pool, located at J. Bohunice site, were investigated using MCNP5. The criticality safety
analysis focused on the evaluation of maximal neutron multiplication factor values at
postulated conditions applying conservative approach. The outcomes of the investigations
showed that the requirement of current safety regulations to ensure 5 % subcriticality was met
The analyses showed that nuclear criticality safety criteria in terms of the spent fuel storage
pool are satisfied.

LIST OF NOMENCLATURE

ENDF - Evaluated Nuclear Data File

FA - Fuel Assembly
MCNP - Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code

REFERENCES

[1] F. B. Brown, “Theory & Practice of Criticality Calculation with MCNP5”, LA-UR-08-
0849, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2008)
[2] F. B. Brown, B. Nease, & J. Cheatham, “Convergence Testing for MCNP5 Monte Carlo
Eigenvalue Calculations”, M&C+SNA-2007, ANS Mathematics & Computation
Topical Meeting Monterey, CA, 15-19 April 2007, LA-UR-07-1123 (2007)
[3] Implementation of Burnup Credit in Spent Fuel Management Systems. International
Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-TECDOC-1241, Vienna (2000)
[4] International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments,
NEA/NSC/DOC(95)3, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, ISBN 978-92-64-99140-8
(2006)
[5] R. D. Mosteller, “ENDF/B-VII.0, ENDF/B-VI, JEFF-3.1, and JENDL-3.3 Results for
the MCNP Criticality Validation Suite and Other Criticality Benchmarks”, LA-UR-07-
6284, Los Alamos National Laboratory (2007)
[6] G. Nicolaou, N. Tsagas, “Criticality Safety of Spent Nuclear Fuel Assemblies from the
Transmutation of Minor Actinides in Fast Reactors”, Annals of Nuclear Energy, 33
(2006), pp. 305 – 309
[7] X-5 Monte Carlo Team, “MCNP – A general N-Particle Transport Code, Version 5 –
Volume I: Overview and Theory”, LA-UR-03-1987, Los Alamos National Laboratory
(April 2003)