Initial Safety Parameter Evaluation of a PWR Loaded with Thorium and Reprocessed Fuel

Authors

  • Matheus Henrique dos Santos Araújo Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear (CDTN)
  • Graiciany de Paula Barros Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear (CDTN)
  • Geovana Loren da Cruz Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear (CDTN)
  • Keferson Almeida Carvalho Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear (CDTN) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7976-477X
  • Vitor Silva Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear (CDTN)
  • Andre Augusto Campagnole dos Santos Centro de Desenvolvimento da Tecnologia Nuclear (CDTN)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15392/2319-0612.2024.2688

Keywords:

PWR, GANEX, UREX+, Reprocessed fuel, Closed nuclear fuel cycle

Abstract

The once-through cycle (OTC) of nuclear fuel results in storing large quantities of high-radioactive isotopes. Alternatively, the closed cycle (CC), which involves reprocessing and reusing spent nuclear fuel, improves fuel utilization and reduces high-level radioactive waste. This study evaluates the feasibility of incorporating reprocessed fuel into a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) core. The PWR core was simulated based on the component dimensions, material definitions, and fuel compositions described in the available Benchmark for Evaluation and Validation of Reactor Simulations (BEAVRS). This core configuration originally contained only uranium-based fuels enriched at different levels, namely 1.6, 2.4, and 3.1 wt-% of 235U, and was used as a reference case.  Subsequently, the spent fuel of a PWR that attained a burnup of approximately 33,000 MWd/tHM and a cooling period of five years was theoretically reprocessed using two techniques: GANEX or UREX+. Both reprocessed fuels compositions were spiked with thorium dioxide. Then, four other PWR core configurations were simulated: two with the insertion of fuels reprocessed by the GANEX or UREX+ technique replacing uranium-based fuel enriched at 2.4% and two with the insertion of fuels reprocessed by the GANEX or UREX+ techniques replacing uranium-based fuel enriched at 3.1%. The Serpent code was used to simulate the reactor and assess the neutron flux, temperature reactivity coefficients and the impact of the boron concentration in the coolant on the effective multiplication factor. The findings indicate that using reprocessed fuel in this PWR core is not only feasible but also advantageous.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] BRUNO, J. et al. Assessment of the environmental footprint of nuclear energy systems. Comparison between closed and open fuel cycles. Energy, v. 69, p. 199-211, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.069

[2] National Nuclear Laboratory. Available at: https://www.nnl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/minor_actinide_transmutation_-_position_paper_-_final_for_web1.pdf. Accessed on: 06 Jul. 2024.

[3] BALDWIN, T.; CHAPMAN, N.; NEALL, F. Geological Disposal Options for High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel. In: UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, 2008.

[4] Jet Propulsion Laboratory. An analysis of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle with emphasis on high-level waste management, v. 1, In: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 1997.

[5] ZUHAIR, et al. Transmutation of Plutonium and Minor Actinide in PWR Thorium-Transuranic Fuel Assembly. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, v. 13, no. 6, p. 2060-2066, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.6.18638

[6] Nuclear Energy Agency, Trends towards Sustainability in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, NEA, 2011.

[7] International Atomic Energ Agency, Management of Reprocessed Uranium Current Status and Future Prospects, IAEA TECDOC (CD-ROM) No. 1529, IAEA, Vienna, 2007.

[8] World Nuclear Association. Available at: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel. Accessed on: 20 Jul. 2024.

[9] HORELIK, N. MIT Benchmark for Evaluation and Validation of Reactor Simulations (BEAVRS), Rev. 2.0.2. MIT Computational Reactor Physics Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018.

[10] MIGUIRDITCHIAN, M. et al. Ganex: Adaptation of the Diamex-sanex Process for the Group Actinide Separation. American Nuclear Society, v. 9, p. 1-6, 2010.

[11] VANDEGRIFT, G. et al. LAB-SCALE Demonstration of UREX+ process, 2004.

[12] REGALBUTO, M. C. Alternative separation and extraction : Urex+ processes for actinide and targeted fission product recover. In : Nash, K. L., Lumetta, G. J. Advanced Separation Techniques for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Treatment, UK : Woodhead Publishing, 2011. p. 176-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857092274.2.176

[13] LEPPANEN, J. et al. The Serpent Monte Carlo code: Status, development and applications in 2013. Annals of Nuclear Energy, v. 82, p. 2887-2996, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2014.08.024

[14] CHADWICK, M. ENDF/B-VII.1 nuclear data for science and technology: cross sections, covariances, fission product yields and decay data. Nuclear Data Sheets, v. 112, p. 2887-2996, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2011.11.002

[15] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems. Available at: https://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/. Accessed on: 28 Jul. 2024.

[16] DAING, A. T.; KIM, M. Feasibility of reduced boron concentration operation in pressurized water reactor plants. Nuclear Technology, v. 176, p. 40-56, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13182/NT176-40

[17] KIM, J. et al. Nuclear design feasibility of the soluble boron free PWR core. Journal of the Korean Nuclear Society, v. 30, p. 342-352, 1998.

Downloads

Published

2025-04-23

How to Cite

Initial Safety Parameter Evaluation of a PWR Loaded with Thorium and Reprocessed Fuel. Brazilian Journal of Radiation Sciences, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, v. 12, n. 4B (Suppl.), p. 2688, 2025. DOI: 10.15392/2319-0612.2024.2688. Disponível em: https://www.bjrs.org.br/revista/index.php/REVISTA/article/view/2688. Acesso em: 1 may. 2025.