Nuclear Data Uncertainty Quantification in Criticality Safety Evaluations for Spent Nuclear Fuel Geological Disposal
Source abstract
Abstract
Presently, a criticality safety evaluation methodology for the final geological disposal of Swiss spent nuclear fuel is under development at the Paul Scherrer Institute in collaboration with the Swiss National Technical Competence Centre in the field of deep geological disposal of radioactive waste. This method in essence pursues a best estimate plus uncertainty approach and includes burnup credit. Burnup credit is applied by means of a computational scheme called BUCSS-R (Burnup Credit System for the Swiss Reactors–Repository case) which is complemented by the quantification of uncertainties from various sources. BUCSS-R consists in depletion, decay and criticality calculations with CASMO5, SERPENT2 and MCNP6, respectively, determining the keff eigenvalues of the disposal canister loaded with the Swiss spent nuclear fuel assemblies. However, the depletion calculation in the first and the criticality calculation in the third step, in particular, are subject to uncertainties in the nuclear data input. In previous studies, the effects of these nuclear data-related uncertainties on obtained keff values, stemming from each of the two steps, have been quantified independently. Both contributions to the overall uncertainty in the calculated keff values have, therefore, been considered as fully correlated leading to an overly conservative estimation of total uncertainties. This study presents a consistent approach eliminating the need to assume and take into account unrealistically strong correlations in the keff results. The nuclear data uncertainty quantification for both depletion and criticality calculation is now performed at once using one and the same set of perturbation factors for uncertainty propagation through the corresponding calculation steps of the evaluation method. The present results reveal the overestimation of nuclear data-related uncertainties by the previous approach, in particular for spent nuclear fuel with a high burn-up, and underline the importance of consistent nuclear data uncertainty quantification methods. However, only canister loadings with UO2 fuel assemblies are considered, not offering insights into potentially different trends in nuclear data-related uncertainties for mixed oxide fuel assemblies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nuclear reactor physics and engineering · Nuclear Materials and Properties · Nuclear and radioactivity studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Paul Scherrer Institut, Forschungsstrasse 111, 5232 Villigen, Switzerland
Funding
Nagra, Nationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle, Hardstrasse 73, 5430 Wettingen, Switzerland
References (47)
Show source-provided references
1. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) (2021, April 09). Deep Geological Repository Sectoral Plan (SDGR). Available online: https://www.uvek-gis.admin.ch/BFE/storymaps/EA_SachplanGeologischeTiefenlager/?lang=en.
2. Johnson, L.H., Schneider, J., Zuidema, P., Gribi, P., Mayer, G., and Smith, P. (2002). Project Opalinus Clay-Safety Report: Demonstration of Disposal Feasibility for Spent Fuel, Vitrified High-Level Waste and Long-Lived Intermediate-Level Waste (Entsorgungsnachweis), Nationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung radioaktiver Abfälle. NAGRA Technical Report 02–05.
3. Herrero, J.J., Pecchia, M., Ferroukhi, H., Canepa, S., Vasiliev, A., and Caruso, S. (2015, January 13–17). Computational scheme for burnup credit applied to long term waste disposal. Proceedings of the Nuclear Criticality Safety International Conference, ICNC 2015, Charlotte, NC, USA.
4. Herrero, J.J., Pecchia, M., Ferroukhi, H., Canepa, S., Vasiliev, A., and Caruso, S. (2016, January 11–16). Impact of Nuclear Data Uncertainty on Safety Calculations for Spent Nuclear Fuel Geological Disposal. Proceedings of the ND 2016: International Conference on Nuclear Data for Science and Technology, Bruges, Belgium. (EPJ Web Conference, 146, 09028, 2017).10.1051/epjconf/201714609028 ↗
5. Nuclear data uncertainty for criticality-safety: Monte Carlo vs. linear perturbation10.1016/j.anucene.2016.01.042 ↗
6. Uncertainty quantification for crit- icality problems using non-intrusive and adaptive Polynomial Chaos techniques10.1016/j.anucene.2013.01.009 ↗
7. Radulescu, G., Mueller, D.E., and Wagner, J.C. (2008). Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analysis of Commercial Reactor Criticals for Burnup Credit, NUREG/CR-6951, Technical Report.
8. A Statistical Sampling Method for Uncertainty Analysis with SCALE and XSUSA10.13182/NT12-112 ↗
9. Gauld, I., and Mertyurek, U. (2018). Margins for Uncertainty in the Predicted Spent Fuel Isotopic Inventories for BWR Burnup Credit, NUREG/CR-7251, Technical Report.
10. Patel, R., Punshon, C., Nicholas, J., Bastid, P., Zhou, R., Schneider, C., Bagshaw, N., Howse, D., Hutchinson, E., and Asano, R. (2012). Canister Design Concepts for Disposal of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste, Nationale Genossenschaft für die Lagerung Radioaktiver Abfälle. NAGRA Technical Report 12-06.
11. Vasiliev, A., Herrero, J.J., Pecchia, M., Rochman, D.A., Ferroukhi, H., and Caruso, S. (2019). Preliminary Assessment of Criticality Safety Constraints for Swiss Spent Nuclear Fuel Loading in Disposal Canisters. Materials, 12.10.3390/ma12030494 ↗
12. Werner, C.J., Bull, J.S., Solomon, C.J., Brown, F.B., McKinney, G.W., Rising, M.E., Dixon, D.A., Martz, R.L., Hughes, H.G., and Cox, L.J. (2017). MCNP Users Manual-Code Version 6.2, Los Alamos National Laboratory. LA-UR-17-29981.
13. Eidgenössisches Nuklearsicherheitsinspektorat (ENSI) (2020). Geologische Tiefenlager, Richtlinie für die Schweizerischen Kernanlagen, ENSI. Ausgabe Dezember 2020; ENSI-G03/d.
14. Ferroukhi, H., Hofer, K., Hollard, J.M., Vasiliev, A., and Zimmermann, M.A. (2008, January 14–19). Core Modelling and Analysis of the Swiss Nuclear Power Plants for Qualified R&D Applications. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Physics of Reactors, PHYSOR-2008, Interlaken, Switzerland.
15. Cronin, J., Smith, K., and Planck, D.V. (1995). SIMULATE-3 Methodology, Advanced Three-Dimensional Two-Group Reactor Analysis Code, Studsvik of America, Inc.. STUDSVIK/SOA-95/18; Rev 0.
16. Methodology for core analyses with nuclear data uncertainty quantification and application to Swiss PWR operated cycles10.1016/j.anucene.2017.07.006 ↗
17. Rochman, D.A., Dokhane, A., Vasiliev, A., Ferroukhi, H., and Hursin, M. (2020). Nuclear data uncertainties for core parameters based on Swiss BWR operated cycles. Ann. Nucl. Energy, 148.10.1016/j.anucene.2020.107727 ↗
18. Studies of intra-pin power distributions in operated BWR fuel assemblies using MCNP with a cycle check-up methodology10.1016/j.anucene.2019.01.047 ↗
19. Rhodes, J., Smith, K., and Lee, D. (2006, January 10–14). CASMO-5 Development and Applications. Proceedings of the ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Physics, PHYSOR-2006, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
20. Leppänen, J. (2015). Serpent—A Continuous-Energy Monte Carlo Reactor Physics Burn-up Calculation Code, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. User’s Manual, 18 June 2015.
21. Review calculations for the OECD/NEA Burn-up Credit Criticality Safety Benchmark10.1016/j.anucene.2015.08.014 ↗
22. Pecchia, M., Herrero, J.J., Ferroukhi, H., Vasiliev, A., Canepa, S., and Pautz, A. (2015, January 13–17). COMPLINK: A Versatile Tool for Automatizing the Representation of Fuel Compositions in MCNP Models. Proceedings of the Nuclear Criticality Safety International Conference, ICNC 2015, Charlotte, NC, USA.
23. Vasiliev, A., Herrero, J.J., Rochman, D.A., Pecchia, M., Ferroukhi, H., and Caruso, S. (2018, January 13–18). Criticality Safety Evaluations for the Concept of Swiss PWR Spent Fuel Geological Repository. Proceedings of the Best Estimate Plus Uncertainty International Conference, BEPU 2018, Lucca, Italy.
24. Vasiliev, A., Rochman, D.A., Pecchia, M., and Ferroukhi, H. (2016). Exploring Stochastic Sampling in Nuclear Data Uncertainties Assessment for Reactor Physics Applications and Validation Studies. Energies, 9.10.3390/en9121039 ↗
25. PSI Methodologies for Nuclear Data Uncertainty Propagation with CASMO-5M and MCNPX: Results for OECD/NEA UAM Benchmark Phase I
26. Leray, O., Grimm, P., Hursin, M., Ferroukhi, H., and Pautz, A. (October, January 28). Uncertainty quantification of spent fuel nuclide compositions due to cross-sections, decay constants and fission yields. Proceedings of the ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Physics, PHYSOR-2014, Kyoto, Japan.
27. Nuclear data uncertainty propagation on spent fuel nuclide compositions10.1016/j.anucene.2016.03.023 ↗
28. Uncertainties for Swiss LWR spent nuclear fuels due to nuclear data10.1051/epjn/2018005 ↗
29. Uncertainty propagation of fission product yields to nuclide composition and decay heat for a PWR UO2 fuel assembly10.1016/j.pnucene.2017.05.033 ↗
30. Cullen, D.E. (2014). Program. ENDF2C: Convert ENDF Data to Standard Fortran, C and C++ Format, IAEA-NDS-217, International Atomic Energy Agency. Technical Report.
31. Comparison of nuclear data uncertainty propagation methodologies for PWR burn-up simulations10.1016/j.anucene.2014.10.022 ↗
32. Decay heat uncertainty for BWR used fuel due to modeling and nuclear data uncertainties10.1016/j.nucengdes.2017.05.009 ↗
33. Propagation of 235,236,238U and 239Pu Nuclear Data Uncertainties for a Typical PWR Fuel Element10.13182/NT11-61 ↗
34. NUSS: A tool for propagating multigroup nuclear data covariances in pointwise ACE-formatted nuclear data using stochastic sampling method10.1016/j.anucene.2014.09.013 ↗
35. Vasiliev, A., Rochman, D.A., Zhu, T., Pecchia, M., Ferroukhi, H., and Pautz, A. (2015, January 13–17). Towards application of neutron cross-section uncertainty propagation capability in the criticality safety methodology. Proceedings of the Nuclear Criticality Safety International Conference, ICNC 2015, Charlotte, NC, USA.
36. ENDF/B-VII.0: Next Generation Evaluated Nuclear Data Library for Nuclear Science and Technology10.1016/j.nds.2006.11.001 ↗
37. ENDF/B-VII.1 Nuclear Data for Science and Technology: Cross Sections, Covariances, Fission Product Yields and Decay Data10.1016/j.nds.2011.11.002 ↗
38. Nuclear Energy Agency of The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD/NEA) (2012). Burn-Up Credit Criticality Safety Benchmark—Phase VII: UO2 Fuel: Study of Spent Fuel Compositions for Long-Term Disposal, OECD/NEA. NEA No. 6998. Technical Report.
39. American Nuclear Society (ANS) (2007). Validation of Neutron Transport. Methods for Nuclear Criticality Safety Calculations, ANSI/ANS-8.24-2007, ANS. Technical Report.
40. Nuclear Energy Agency of The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD/NEA) (2012). International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments, OECD/NEA. NEA/NSC/DOC(95)03, December 2012; Technical Report.
41. Wagner, J.C., and Parks, C.V. (2003). Recommendations on the Credit for Cooling Time in PWR Burnup Credit Analyses, NUREG/CR-6781, Technical Report.10.2172/885754 ↗
42. Application of the PSI-NUSS Tool for the Estimation of Nuclear Data Related keff Uncertainties for the OECD/NEA WPNCS UACSA Phase I Benchmark10.1016/j.nds.2014.04.104 ↗
43. On the options for incorporating nuclear data uncertainties in criticality safety assessments for LWR fuel10.1016/j.anucene.2018.01.046 ↗
44. Nuclear Data Uncertainties for Typical LWR Fuel Assemblies and a Simple Reactor Core10.1016/j.nds.2017.01.001 ↗
45. Uncertainty quantification of LWR-PROTEUS Phase II experiments using CASMO-510.1016/j.anucene.2019.03.023 ↗
46. Standard errors: A review and evaluation of standard error estimators using Monte Carlo simulations10.20982/tqmp.10.2.p107 ↗
47. Consistent criticality and radiation studies of Swiss spent nuclear fuel: The CS2M approach10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.05.041 ↗