Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T02:27:29.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific Bases for Cladding Credit as a Barrier to Radionuclide Release at the Proposed Yucca Mountain Repository+

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

T. M. Ahn ,
G. A. Cragnolino ,
K. S. Chan  and
N. Sridhar
T. M. Ahn
Affiliation:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, USA
G. A. Cragnolino
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Rd., San Antonio, TX 78238, USA
K. S. Chan
Affiliation:
Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Rd., San Antonio, TX 78238, USA
N. Sridhar
Affiliation:
Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Rd., San Antonio, TX 78238, USA
Get access

Abstract

The performance of Zircaloy nuclear fuel cladding in the environment of the proposed Yucca Mountain (YM) high-level waste (HLW) repository is evaluated. Because the uniform aqueous corrosion/oxidation rate is extremely slow, this evaluation focuses on mechanical failure, localized corrosion, stress corrosion cracking (SCC), hydrogen embrittlement, and initial failure. Mechanical failure is expected to result from (1) disruptive events such as rockfalls from seismicity, faulting, and igneous activities, (2) creep, and (3) splitting by oxidation of the spent fuel (SF) matrix. Effects of chloride ions and radiolysis are evaluated in localized corrosion and SCC. Embrittlement can be caused by delayed-hydride cracking (DHC) and hydride reorientation. Among these cladding failure modes, rockfalls, other disruptive events and initial defects can be important to performance prior to the container failure by corrosion. Confirmatory tests are required to evaluate the susceptibility to splitting by secondary mineral formation, localized corrosion, SCC, and hydride reorientation. Reliable temperature calculations with backfilling are also required. After breach, cladding may still assure slow release of radionuclides through perforations because localized failures may limit the exposure of the SF matrix and may provide high mass-transfer resistance. Failures prior to the repository emplacement arising from reactor operation, pool storage, dry storage, and transportation are also considered.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 556: Symposium QQ – Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XXII , 1999 , 525
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Stablein, N. K., Issue Resolution Status Report (Key Technical Issue: Container Life and Source Term), letter to S. Brocoum (March 13), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1998d.Google Scholar
[2] Reamer, C., Issue Resolution Status Report (Key Technical Issue: Container Life and Source Term, Revision 1), letter to S. Brocoum (December 1), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1998.Google Scholar
[3] Mohanty, S., Cragnolino, G., Ahn, T., Dunn, D., Lichtner, P., Manteufel, R., and Sridhar, N., Engineered Barrier System Performance Assessment Code: EBSPAC Version 1.1, Technical Description and User's Manual, CNWRA 97-006, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 1997.Google Scholar
[4] Siegmann, E., “Cladding credit in TSPA-VA,” Workshop on Significant Issues and Available Data - Waste Form Degradation and Radionuclide Mobilization Expert Elicitation Project, San Francisco, CA, 1997a (more details in TSPA - VA: Analyses Technical Basis Document, under preparation by DOE).Google Scholar
[5] Siegmann, E., “Cladding credit in TSPA-VA,” Workshop on Alternative Models and Interpretations - Waste Form degradation and Radionuclide Mobilization Expert Elicitation Project, San Francisco, CA, 1997b (more details in TSPA - VA: Analyses Technical Basis Document, under preparation by DOE).Google Scholar
[6] Ahn, T., “Cladding credit, “DOE/NRC Technical Exchange on Total System Performance Assessment Viability Assessment, San Antonio, TX, March 17-19, 1998.Google Scholar
[7] Ahn, T., Dry oxidation and fracture of LWR spent fuels, NUREG-1565, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1996.Google Scholar
[8] Ahn, T., Waste Management, 14, p. 393 (1994).Google Scholar
[9] Rothman, A., Potential corrosion and degradation mechanisms of zircaloy cladding on spent nuclear fuel in a tuff repository, UCID-20172, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
[10] Clayton, J. and Fischer, R. in Proceedings of the Am. Nucl. Soc. Topical Meeting on Light Water Reactor Fuel Performance, 1, p. 1, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, 1985.Google Scholar
[11] ASM International, Metals Handbook, Materials Park, OH, 1990.Google Scholar
[12] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The model description and sensitivity analysis for TPA is currently under development and the sensitivity analysis being conducted, 1998.Google Scholar
[13] Stablein, N. K., Issue Resolution Status Report (Rev. 1), Key Technical Issue: Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects, letter to S. Brocoum (October 2), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1998a.Google Scholar
[14] Stablein, N. K., Issue Resolution Status Report – Revision 1, Key Technical Issue: Structural Deformation and Seismicity, letter to S. Brocoum (September 30), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1998b.Google Scholar
[15] Stablein, N. K., Issue Resolution Status Report (Key Technical Issue: Igneous Activity, Revision 1), letter to S. Brocoum (July 16), Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 1998c.Google Scholar
[16] Sanders, T., Seager, K., Rashid, Y., Barrett, P., Malinauskas, A., Einziger, R., Jordan, H., Duffey, T., Sutherland, S. and Reardon, P., A method for determining the spent-fuel contribution to transport cask containment requirements, SAND90-2406, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 1992.Google Scholar
[17] McCoy, J. in 6th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, ICON-6, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, new York, NY, 1998.Google Scholar
[18] Levy, I., Chin, B., Simonen, E., Beyer, C., Gilbert, E., and Johnson, A. Jr., Recommended temperature limits for dry storage of spent light water reactor zircaloy-clad fuel rods in inert gas, PNL-6189, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1987.Google Scholar
[19] Schwartz, M. and Witte, M., Spent fuel cladding integrity during dry storage, UCID-21181, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
[20] Thomas, G., Updated model for predicting spent fuel cladding integrity during dry storage, UCRL-ID-134217, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, 1999.Google Scholar
[21] Chin, B., Khan, M., Tarn, J. and Gilbert, E., Deformation and fracture map methodology for predicting cladding behavior during dry storage, PNL-5998, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1986.Google Scholar
[22] McCoy, J. and Doering, T. in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, p.565, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, 1994.Google Scholar
[23] Raj, R. and Ashby, M., Acta Met., 25, p. 653 (1975).Google Scholar
[24] Peehs, M. and Fleisch, J., J. Nucl. Mat., 137, p. 190 (1986).Google Scholar
[25] Pescatore, C., Cowgill, M. and Sullivan, T., Zircaloy cladding performance under spent fuel disposal conditions, BNL-52235, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 1989.Google Scholar
[26] Murty, K., private communication, North Carolina State University, based on his submission of a report to DOE's Management & Operating (M&O) Contractors, 1998.Google Scholar
[27] Einziger, R. in Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, 2, p.554, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, 1994.Google Scholar
[28] McCoy, J. in Proceedings of the Seventh Annual International Conference on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, p.396, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, 1996.Google Scholar
[29] Einziger, R., “Preliminary spent LWR fuel oxidation source term model,” Workshop on Significant Issues and Available Data - Waste Form Degradation and Radionuclide Mobilization Expert Elicitation Project, San Francisco, CA, 1997.Google Scholar
[30] Cragnolino, G. and Galvele, J. in Passivity of Metals, edited by Frankethal, R. and Kruger, J., The Electrochemical Society, Princeton, NJ, 1978.Google Scholar
[31] Maguire, M. in Industrial Applications of Titanium and Zirconium: Third Conference, edited by Webster, T. and Yong, C.S., p. 175, ASTM STP 830, American Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, PA, 1984.Google Scholar
[32] Yau, T., Corrosion 83, p.26/1, 1983.Google Scholar
[33] Burns, W., Huges, A., Mapples, J., Nelsen, R., and Stoneham, A., J. Nucl. Mat. 107, p. 245 (1982).Google Scholar
[34] Cox, B., Corrosion, 29, p.157, 1973.Google Scholar
[35] Mankowski, G., Roques, Y., Chatainier, G. and Dabosi, F., Brit. Corr. J., 19, p.17 (1984).Google Scholar
[36] Dutton, R., Nuttall, K., Puls, M. and Simpson, L., Metallurgical Transactions A, 8A, p.1553 (1977).Google Scholar
[37] Northwood, D. and Kosasih, U., Int. Met. Rev., 28(2), p. 92 (1983).Google Scholar
[38] Cunningham, M., Simonen, E., Allemann, R., Levy, I., Hazelton, R. and Gilbert, E., Control of degradation of spent LWR fuel during dry storage in an inert atmosphere, PNL-6364, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1987.Google Scholar
[39] Shi, S.-Q. and Puls, M., J. Nucl. Mat., 218, p.20 (1994).Google Scholar
[40] Mardon, J., Garner, G., Beslu, P., Charquet, D., and Senevat, J. in Proceedings of the 1997 International Topical Meeting on LWR Fuel Performance, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, 1997.Google Scholar
[41] Einziger, R. and Kohli, R., Nucl. Tech., 67, p. 107 (1984).Google Scholar
[42] Hardie, D. and Shanahan, M., J. Nucl. Mat., 55, p.1 (1975).Google Scholar
[43] Marshall, R., J. Nucl. Mat., 24, p.34 (1967).Google Scholar
[44] Bai, J., Prioul, C. and Francois, D., Met. Mat. Trans. A, 25A, p.1199 (1994).Google Scholar
[45] Chan, K., J. Nucl. Mat., 227, p.220 (1996).Google Scholar
[46] Simpson, L. and Cann, C., J. Nucl. Mat., 87, p. 303 (1979).Google Scholar
[47] Kreyns, P., Bourgeois, W., White, C., Charpentier, P., Kammenzind, B. and Franklin, D. in Zirconium in the Nuclear Industry, Eleventh International Symposium, edited by Bradley, E.R. and Sabol, G.P., p. 758, ASTM STP 1298, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1996.Google Scholar
[48] Wilson, C., Results from NNWSI series 3 spent fuel dissolution tests, PNL-7170, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA, 1990.Google Scholar
[49] Johnson, L., L.H., “Waste form exposed surface area: Relationship to degradation rate,” Workshop on Preliminary Interpretations - Waste Form Degradation and Radionuclide Mobilization Expert Elicitation Project, San Francisco, CA, 1998.Google Scholar
[50] Zwahlen, E., Pigford, T., Chambre, P. and Lee, W. in Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on High Level Radioactive Waste Management 1, p. 418, American Nuclear Society, La Grange Park, IL, 1990.Google Scholar