Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Material attractiveness of irradiated fuel salts from the Seaborg Compact Molten Salt Reactor

  • Vaibhav Mishra (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University) ;
  • Erik Branger (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University) ;
  • Sophie Grape (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University) ;
  • Zsolt Elter (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University) ;
  • Sorouche Mirmiran (Formerly employed by Seaborg Technologies)
  • Received : 2023.09.13
  • Accepted : 2024.04.30
  • Published : 2024.09.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Over the years, numerous evaluations of material attractiveness have been performed for conventional light water reactors to better understand the nature of the spent fuel material and its desirability for misuse at different points in the nuclear fuel cycle. However, availability of such assessments for newer, Generation IV reactors such as Molten Salt Reactors is rather limited. In the present study we address the gap in knowledge of material attractiveness for molten salt reactor systems and describe the nature of irradiated fuel salts which the nuclear safeguards community might be faced with in the near future as more and more such reactors enter commission and operation. Within the scope of the paper, we use a large database of simulated irradiated fuel salt isotopics (and other derived quantities such as gamma activity, decay heat, and neutron emission rates) developed specifically for a molten salt reactor concept in order to shed some light on possible weapons usability of uranium and plutonium present in the irradiated fuel salts. This has been achieved by proposing a new attractiveness metric that is better suited for quantifying attractiveness of irradiated salts from a model molten salt concept. The said metric has been computed using a database that has been created by simulating the irradiation of molten fuel salt in a concept core over a wide range of operational parameters (burnup, initial enrichment, and cooling time) using the Monte-Carlo particle transport code, Serpent. With the help of this attractiveness metric, the findings from this study have shown that in relative terms, molten salt spent fuel is more attractive than spent fuel produced by a conventional light water reactor. The findings also underscore the need for strengthened safeguards measures for such spent fuel. These results are expected to be useful in the future for regulatory authorities as well as for nuclear safeguards inspectors for designing a functional safeguards verification routine for irradiated fuel of such unique nature.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority Stralsakerhetsmyndigheten (SSM), Sweden for the financial support under the contracts SSM2022-4698, SSM2017-5980, and SSM2023-4386 that made this work possible. We are also grateful to our industry collaborators from Seaborg Technologies for sharing models, specifications and their feedback that was crucial for this work to come to fruition.

References

  1. R. Roper, et al., Molten salt for advanced energy applications: A review, Ann. Nucl. Energy 169 (2022) 108924, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108924.
  2. A. Ho, et al., Exploring the benefits of molten salt reactors: An analysis of flexibility and safety features using dynamic simulation, Digit. Chem. Eng. 7 (2023) 100091, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dche.2023.100091.
  3. B. Elsheikh, Safety assessment of molten salt reactors in comparison with light water reactors, J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 6 (2) (2013) 63-70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrras.2013.10.008.
  4. M. Pater, et al., Nuclear reactor barge for sustainable energy production, in: WCFS2020, Springer, 2022, pp. 179-191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2256-4_11.
  5. V. Mishra, et al., Irradiated fuel salt data library for a molten salt reactor produced with Serpent2 and SOURCES 4C codes, Data Brief 52 (2024) 109817, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109817.
  6. M. Al-Dbissi, Preliminary safeguard and security analysis of Seaborg's compact molten salt reactor (CMSR), 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351086358_Preliminary_Safeguard_and_Security_Analysis_of_Seaborg%27s_Compact_Molten_Salt_Reactor_CMSR.
  7. J. Leppanen, et al., The serpent Monte Carlo code: Status, development and applications in 2013, Ann. Nucl. Energy 82 (2014) 142-150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.024.
  8. A. Bolind, The use of the BIC set in the characterization of used nuclear fuel assemblies by nondestructive assay, Ann. Nucl. Energy 66 (2014) 31-50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2013.11.010.
  9. IAEA, IAEA safeguards glossary, (3) 2003, https://www.iaea.org/publications/6663/iaea-safeguards-glossary.
  10. C. Bathke, et al., The attractiveness of materials in advanced nuclear fuel cycles for various proliferation and theft scenarios, Nucl. Technol. 179 (1) (2012) 5-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.13182/NT10-203.
  11. B. Pellaud, Proliferation aspects of plutonium recycling, C. R. Phys. 3 (7-8) (2002) 1067-1079, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1631-0705(02)01364-6.
  12. DoE Manual, Nuclear materials control and accountability - DOE-std-1194-2011, 2013, U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.standards.doe.gov/standardsdocuments/1100/1194-astd-2011-cn3-2013/@@images/file.
  13. DoE Manual, Manual for control and accountability of nuclear material, Dep. Energy Man. (2006) 470.4-6, https://www.directives.doe.gov/directivesdocuments/400-series/0474.1-DManual-1a.
  14. M. Saito, et al., Development of methodology for plutonium categorization (II) - improvement of evaluation function ''attractiveness''-, in: Transactions of the American Nuclear Society, vol. 98, 2008, p. 669, https://research.nu.edu.kz/en/publications/development-of-methodology-for-plutonium-categorization-iiimprov.
  15. Y. Kimura, M. Saito, H. Sagara, Improvement of evaluation methodology of plutonium for intrinsic feature of proliferation resistance based on its isotopic barrier, Ann. Nucl. Energy 40 (1) (2012) 130-140, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2011.10.008.
  16. S. Permana, M. Suzuki, Basic evaluation on material attractiveness of isotopic plutonium barrier, Prog. Nucl. Energy 53 (7) (2011) 958-963, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2011.04.014.
  17. V. Artisyuk, M. Saito, A. Ezoubtchenko, Development of methodology to assess proliferation resistance of nuclear heavy metals, Prog. Nucl. Energy 50 (2) (2008) 647-653, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2007.11.076.
  18. I. Naydenov, K. Filipov, Plutonium-containing civilian materials' attractiveness analysis using the 'Figure of Merit' methodology, BgNS Trans. 20 (2) (2015) 124-131, https://bgns-transactions.org/Journals/20-2/vol.20-2_10.pdf. https://doi.org/10.pdf
  19. H. Trellue, C. Bathke, P. Sadasivan, Neutronics and material attractiveness for PWR thorium systems using Monte Carlo techniques, Prog. Nucl. Energy 53 (6) (2011) 698-707, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2011.04.007.
  20. M. Todosow, et al., The Indian Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) and Non-Proliferation Attributes, Technical Report, Brookhaven National Lab. (BNL), Upton, NY (United States), 2012, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1056409.
  21. A. Oizumi, T. Sugawara, H. Sagara, Material attractiveness evaluation of fuel assembly of accelerator-driven system for nuclear security and non-proliferation, Ann. Nucl. Energy 169 (2022) 108951, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2021.108951.
  22. R. Ibrahim, A. Buijs, J. Luxat, Assessment of the material attractiveness and reactivity feedback coefficients of various fuel cycles for the Canadian concept of super-critical water reactors, Nucl. Eng. Technol. (2022) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.01.036.
  23. G. Renda, F. Alim, G. Cojazzi, Proliferation resistance and material type considerations within the collaborative project for a European sodium fast reactor, ESARDA Bull. 52 (2015) 124-143, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fbc7e85c-9f5f-4a03-8797-770e29181a10.
  24. D. Beller, R. Krakowski, Burnup dependence of proliferation attributes of plutonium from spent LWR fuel, 1999, Los Alamos National Laboratory document LA-UR-99-7S1, https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00326582.pdf.
  25. G. Kulikov, et al., Comprehensive analysis of proliferation protection of uranium due to the presence of 232U and its decay products, Nucl. Energy Technol. 8 (4) (2022) 253-260, http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/nucet.8.96564.
  26. D. Albright, L. Barbour, Troubles tomorrow, Sep. Neptunium 237 (1999) 199985-199996, https://isis-online.org/uploads/books/documents/New%20chapter%205.pdf.
  27. D. Albright, K. Kramer, Neptunium 237 and americium: World inventories and proliferation concerns, Inst. Sci. Int. Secur. 6060 (2005) 1-24, https://isisonline.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/np_237_and_americium.pdf.
  28. T. Burr, W.D. Stanbro, W. Charlton, An evaluation of safeguards approaches for neptunium, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 38 (3) (2001) 209-216, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18811248.2001.9715023.
  29. Seaborg Technologies, Press release 04/07/2023: Seaborg confirms change of fuel type and signs memoranda of understanding for fuel salt development and production, 2023, in press. https://www.seaborg.com/press-release-fuel-typeleu.
  30. V. Dos, et al., Transactions of the Korean nuclear society virtual autumn meeting december 17-18 dynamic burnup studies of seaborg compact molten salt reactor by serpent 2, 2020, https://www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/44/20A-079.pdf.
  31. V. Mishra, et al., Assessments of radiation emission from molten salt reactor spent fuel: Implications for future nuclear safeguards verification, in: INMM & ESARDA Joint Annual Meeting, Vienna, May 22-26, 2023, 2023, https://resources.inmm.org/annual-meeting-proceedings/assessments-radiationemission-molten-salt-reactor-spent-fuel.
  32. W. Wilson, et al., Sources: A code for calculating (𝛼, n), spontaneous fission, and delayed neutron sources and spectra, Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 115 (1-4) (2005) 117-121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2008.11.007.
  33. Z. Elter, et al., Pressurized water reactor spent nuclear fuel data library produced with the Serpent2 code, Data Brief 33 (2020) 106429, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106429.
  34. R. Rossa, A. Borella, Development of the SCK CEN reference datasets for spent fuel safeguards research and development, Data Brief 30 (2020) 105462, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105462.
  35. S. Grape, et al., Determination of spent nuclear fuel parameters using modelled signatures from non-destructive assay and random forest regression, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 969 (2020) 163979, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.163979.
  36. A. Bachmann, et al., Comparison and uncertainty of multivariate modeling techniques to characterize used nuclear fuel, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 991 (2021) 164994, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2020.164994.
  37. V. Mishra, et al., Comparison of different supervised machine learning algorithms to predict PWR spent fuel parameters, in: INMM & ESARDA Joint Virtual Annual Meeting, 2021, https://resources.inmm.org/system/files/annual_meeting_proceedings/a287_11_0.pdf.
  38. V. Mishra, Application of neural networks to nuclear safeguards, 2021, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1552652/FULLTEXT02.
  39. A. Borella, et al., Signatures from the spent fuel: Simulations and interpretation of the data with neural network analysis, ESARDA Bull. 55 (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.3011/ESARDA.IJNSNP.2017.15.
  40. A. Borella, R. Rossa, H. Zaloun, Determination of 239Pu content in spent fuel with the SINRD technique by using artificial and natural neural networks, ESARDA Bull. 58 (2019) 41-47, https://publications.sckcen.be/portal/en/publications/determination-of-239pu-content-in-spent-fuel-with-the-sinrdtechnique-by-using-artificial-and-natural-neural-networks(f9281fad-b0b2-4192-9e5c-11a0ce168a5f).html.
  41. A. Worrall, et al., Molten salt reactors and associated safeguards challenges and opportunities, 2018, https://www.ornl.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/PAPER%20-%20MSR%20Safeguards%20Challenges.pdf.
  42. D. Kovacic, et al., Safeguards Challenges for Molten Salt Reactors, Technical Report, Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2018, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1474868.
  43. S. Creasman, Methodology for source term analysis of a molten salt reactor, 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2023.112881.
  44. M. Dion, et al., Signature Analysis Utilizing a Dynamic Molten Salt Reactor Model for MC&A, Technical Report, Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2021, https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub160122.pdf.
  45. P. Valdez, et al., Modeling Molten Salt Reactor Fission Product Removal with SCALE, Technical Report, Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1608211.
  46. World Nuclear Association (WNA), Plutonium, 2023, https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx#:~:text=A%201000%20MWe%20light%20water,but%20Pu%2D241%20also%20contributing. (Accessed April 2024).
  47. C. Bathke, Commonly Overlooked Material Attractiveness Issues, Technical Report, Los Alamos National Lab. (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States, 2021, http://dx.doi.org/10.2172/1774382.
  48. M. Be, R. Helmer, V. Chiste, The ''NUCLEIDE'' database for decay data and the ''international decay data evaluation project'', J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 39 (sup2) (2002) 481-484, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2002.10875145.
  49. S. Lundberg, S. Lee, A unified approach to interpreting model predictions, in: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, Curran Associates, Inc., 2017, pp. 4765-4774, http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7062-a-unified-approach-tointerpreting-model-predictions.pdf.
  50. E. Lisowski, Evaluation of Material Attractiveness to Non-State Actors of Various Nuclear Materials in Thorium Fuel Cycles (Ph.D. thesis), 2020, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/127306.
  51. O. Vaidya, S. Kumar, Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications, European J. Oper. Res. 169 (1) (2006) 1-29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028.