March 16th, 2011 – Assessing SFP Damage – SOARCA – Uncovered Spent Fuel Reports – Leak at Unit 4 SFP

Author: No Comments Share:

From: Gibson, Kathy
Sent: Monday, March’21, 2011 4:27 PM
To: Santiago, Patricia
Cc: Chang, Richard; Tinkler, Charles; Lee, Richard
Subject: Re: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

We have others that can support event response. I found Mike Salay very knowledgeable and helpful re: MELCOR and source terms in Ops Center. Get Richard, Mike and Hossein involved as appropriate- especially as we move away from SOARCA developed source terms and toward Spent fuel pools.

From: Santiago, Patricia
To: Gibson, Kathy
Cc: Chang, Richard; Tinkler, Charles
Sent: Mon Mar 21 16:12:11 2011
Subject: FW: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

FYI

As priorities are event response and SOARCA, KC is required to support this event action.

I will work with Richard and talk to Susan tomorrow based on SOARCA discussions that Susan discussed this morning related to staff that were available for SOARCA when other key staff worked other projects.

Thanks

From: Tinkler, Charles
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:38 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: ‘Gauntt, Randall 0’; Schaperow, Jason; Santiago, Patricia; Gauntt, Randall 0; Adkins, Kristen
Subject: RE: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

I recommend you drop all SOARCA work while we are developing a revised/improved Fukushima spent fuel pool source term. This work is in response to NRC OpCenter requests for source terms.

From: Casey Wagner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:01 PM
To: Tinkler, Charles
Cc: ‘Gauntt, Randall 0’; Schaperow, Jason
Subject: RE: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Hi Charlie,

I will give some thought on how best to do. Right now, the COR package “lower head” models a X” steel liner backed by concrete. Perhaps what could be done is to fail the “lower head” , which is the X” liner and then allow anything that drops through to arrive in the CORCON cavity. I do not know whether the code will allow the CVH volume below the base plate and the “cavity” CVH volume to be the same. I would specify the surface area to be the same as the 1207 assemblies????

I am tied up with SOARCA peer review comments but will try to find some time tonight or tomorrow night.

From: Tinkler, Charles [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 12:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Gauntt, Randall 0; Schaperow, Jason
Subject: RE: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results
To the extent you can put in a CORCON activated run without too much effort and let it grind away. Can we let it proceed as a uniform mix (not layered)?

Are you continuing the run the existing case past 21’days? Is that case conducting heat to the liner and floor?

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Tinkler, Charles
Subject: Re: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

These are new ones from the weekend with blockage active.

I did not include CORCON in these calcs. Once in CORCON there are many complication with debris in same spot and shifting between 2 MELCOR packages plus CORCON geometry becomes a consolidated “layer”.

Nevertheless, CORCON gives you access to many good models.

Do you want to pursue?

KC

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

From: “Tinkler, Charles”
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:15:05 -0400
To: [email protected]
Cc: Gauntt, Randall O; Schaperow, Jason
Subject: RE: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

KC

Are the results shown in the plots simply a continuation of the same run provided earlier out to -17 hrs 7.

Can we not activate the CORCON model?

From: Casey Wagner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 10:12 AM
To: ‘Gauntt, Randall 0’
Cc: Schaperow, Jason; Tinkler, Charles; ‘Pickering, Susan Y’; Gibson, Kathy; Uhle, Jennifer; [email protected]
Subject: SNL Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Hi Randy,

Last week I adapted the Peach Bottom whole spent pool model that had been developed to establish boundary conditions for the B5b pool spray mitigation studies. The model correctly reflects many aspects of 1F4 (i.e., Fukushima #3 SFP) including SFP water volume, dimensions, number of assemblies in the pool, their discharge age, and decay heat.

[quote]

I was able to use the PB decay routines to specify exactly 548 assemblies at 105 days (3.5 kW/assembly) and 659 assemblies at 500 days (1.5 kW/assembly) for a total pool power of 3.03 MW. Notethat it is nearly 2 weeks before there would be heatups. Consequently, I conclude the 1F4 pool had a small leak. This is not surprising considering the pool liner is only X” stainless steel and it was rocked by a 9.0 earthquake.

[/quote]

The enclosed MELCOR SFP model does not have all the SOARCA type enhancements on the FP release model but does include accurate flow resistance from the SFP experimental program and breakaway air oxidation derived from Argonne data and benchmarked to SFP experiments. It correctly transitions from steam oxidation to breakaway air oxidation as needed.

Here is an important point. Once debris is transferred to the CAVITY (CORCON) models, you lose all the accurate information on debris bed porosity that had been developed in the MELCOR COR package. As you know, COR gives a detailed representation of the fuel rods, particle sizes, conglomerate, material layering, and surface oxide thickness.

That is all lost when materials are transferred to the CAVITY Package (CORCON), where it suddenly forms a solid layer of dimensions specified by the cavity size. In the enclosed calculations, I did not activate CORCON but show the debris very slowly heats and nearly completely oxidizes. There will be almost no chemical oxidation potential. Furthermore, the decay heat will be extremely low relative to a reactor accident. It is hard to imagine that the low decay heat spread out over the larger dimensions of a SFP rack scale without any chemical energy could sustain a temperature above the concrete ablation temperature and ablate through 6-ft of concrete (my opinion).

The gap releases start at 16.6 hours and the Cs-137 release at 21 days is 11% (i.e., the most current calc had an RN problem, so this is from an earlier one).

Let me know if I could help in any way.

Sincerely,
KC

From: Gauntt, Randall 0 [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:21 AM
To: ‘[email protected]
Cc: ‘[email protected]’; Pickering, Susan Y; ‘Jason.Schaperow@ nrc.gov’; ‘[email protected]’;
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Looks to like it’s too cold to ablate concrete. KC’s model can probably tell us this – he just did report the corcon results, probably because there were none. But I have only seen these results this morning. I somehow missed this one mail on Friday. Seems very significant.

From: Uhle, Jennifer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 05:13 AM
To: Gauntt, Randall 0
Cc: Tinkler, Charles ; Pickering, Susan Y; Schaperow, Jason ;
Gibson, Kathy ; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

The question Naval reactors is asking is whether the Unit 4 SFP will reach concrete ablation temperatures.

Jason is talking to them today. I agree about the fact that RES/Sandia is a great team and we at NRC is trying to get the Federal family to use our source terms.

From: Gauntt, Randall 0 [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:50 AM
To: Uhle, Jennifer
Cc: Tinkler, Charles; Pickering, Susan Y; Schaperow, Jason; Gibson, Kathy; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Sorry Jennifer,

You might have misunderstood a bit of what I said.

Wagner’s latest analysis says the pool smoulders but doesn’t get really hot enough owing to starvation of the Zr reaction to really light off. He didn’t provide FP release, but one might expect low releases of Cs – all of any remaining noble gas perhaps. I have not seen this latest analysis. The last SFP source term that I sent in was based on a Peach Bottom Analysis and scaled for Fuku-4. The source term for this analysis that KC sent late Friday will be much lower. I was not aware that this calculation had finished.

KC – were there no FP releases?

Can you send more results?

Randy

From: Uhle, Jennifer [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:28 AM
To: Gauntt, Randall 0
Cc: Tinkler, Charles; Pickering, Susan Y; Schaperow, Jason; Gibson, Kathy
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Randy, no one is questioning NRC’s analyses. We have a KAPL representative here at the Ops Center and he indicated that KAPL had done some calculations using MELCOR for the Admiral and they wanted to ask NRC’s help in reviewing them.

So, I contacted Jason to review the analysis and he said that you guys had done these analyses a few days ago.

I asked Jason to talk to KAPL and inform them of our work so they would hopefully use our analyses. I have no idea what happened on the call with KAPL. I certainly believe our team has done the best analysis.

I also would never ask KAPL to review any analyses you guys do. That is not what initiated the communication with KAPL.

The Admiral and Chairman Jaczko are meeting tomorrow at 8:00 and I am informing the Chairman of our conclusions, not KAPL’s. I don’t even know what KAPL’s were.

Jennifer

From: Gauntt, Randall 0 [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 1:17 AM
To: Uhle, Jennifer
Cc: Tinkler, Charles; Pickering, Susan Y
Subject: FW: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Jennifer,

I gather that you are drawn to evaluation KAPL analyses that were hurriedly put together last week based ob=n cobbled up Grand Gulkf decks, We have been develping and valudating SFP analyses under the multi-million dollar NRC and now OECD programs to model SFP behavior.

We have worked this for years and the skill to make MELCIOR model SFP is not trivial nor accomplished on a Thursday afternoon.

NRC hase the best technology and talent at their disposal. NRC RES shoukd not be pout in the position of evauluating every johnny-come-lately analysis out of left field when you are commander of the most elete troops.

Hope you will find the resuklts informative.

We have also prepared SOURCE TERmS for Unit-4 pool accident and analagous MACCS analyses based on your requestl last thurdsday. You have lots of talent and results at tour dispoosal, and I would me bore than happy to brief tyou on that.

I am here all week supopooirting Dana in hus severe accudent ckass, and would be happy to come out and brief/brainstorm this mess. The KAPal analysis is very runimentary and they had to have second thoughts about sending.

Jennifer – you have paid good money for the best research that there is – make use if it to show leadership that yoiu so deserve.

You can reach me tomorrow: NRC traniningn center (505)2646849 or by e-mail

Dont dump sand!!!!!

Use our source terms !!!!!!!!

Tell Naval Reactor what the source term is,

You neede a briefing, – name your time!!!

Randy

From: Casey Wagner [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 1:20 PM
To: Gauntt, Randall 0; [email protected]; ‘Schaperow, Jason’
Cc: McClellan, Yvonne
Subject: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – MELCOR Results

Randy asked if I would let this calculation continue into severe accident degradation. The model needs a bit of work to convert to 1.8.6 and include latest SOARCA updates but here is the “out-of-the-box” results.

I noticed that debris flow blockage was not on and that probably contributes to the debris coolabilty.

Let me know if you want anything else.

From: Casey Wagner [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:28 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; ‘Schaperow, Jason’ ([email protected])
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – impact of dry pool -call#3 – 800-501-0843 code 6499646

Hi Randy, Charlie, and Jason,

Randy – Sorry to see you were up at 12:36 am.

Enclosed is a pretty good no leak case for Fukushima #4. I was able to use the PB decay routines to specify exactly 548 assemblies at 105 days (3.5 kW/assembly) and 659 assemblies at 500 days (1.5 kW/assembly) for a total pool power of 3.03 MW.

If Fukushima Unit 4 was uncovered in a week, it was not a simple boil-off.

KC

From: Gauntt, Randall 0 [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 12:36 AM
To: Gauntt, Randall 0; ‘Marquino, Wayne (GE Power & Water)’; ‘Hammargren, Benjamin (GE Power & Water)’;
[email protected]; Burns, Shawn; Pickering, Susan Y
Cc: ‘[email protected]’; ‘Bolger, Francis T. (GE Power & Water)’; ‘Ellison, Phillip G (GE Power & Water)’;
‘Ginsberg, Robert (GE Power & Water)’; ‘Klapproth, James F (GE Power & Water)’; ‘[email protected]’; ‘Madronero,
Hernando (GE Power & Water)’; ‘[email protected]
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – impact of dry pool -call#3 – 800-501-0843 code 6499646

Dear Wayne (or anyone at GE!)

It would be of great value to confirm a few things. I think I heard yesterday that the SFP racking at Fukushima-4 had recently gone to high density racking. Can anyone confirm this?

Also, is there any latest best guess as to water level in FU-4 – yesterday NRC Chairman said it was dry; MELCOR says it covered; helecopter flyby says they saw a reflection of the sky in the top-down view. We would say that unless there was a leak, the fuel should only just now be uncovering????

Randy

From: Gauntt, Randall 0
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:06 PM
To: ‘Marquino, Wayne (GE Power & Water)’; ‘Hammargren, Benjamin (GE Power & Water)’
Cc: ‘[email protected]’; ‘Bolger, Francis T. (GE Power & Water)’; ‘Ellison, Phillip G (GE Power & Water)’;
‘Ginsberg, Robert (GE Power & Water)’; ‘Klapproth, James F (GE Power & Water)’; ‘[email protected]’; ‘Madronero,
Hernando (GE Power & Water)’; ‘[email protected]
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – impact of dry pool -call#3 – 800-501-0843 code 6499646

Wayne,

Did GE get the Sandia reports that were being inquired about? I missed some of the conversations.

Randy

From: Marquino, Wayne (GE Power & Water) [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:15 PM
To: Hammargren, Benjamin (GE Power & Water); Gauntt, Randall 0
Cc: [email protected]; Bolger, Francis T. (GE Power & Water); Ellison, Phillip G (GE Power & Water);
Ginsberg, Robert (GE Power & Water); Klapproth, James F (GE Power & Water); [email protected]; Madronero,
Hernando (GE Power & Water); [email protected]
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – impact of dry pool -call#3 – 800-501-0843 code 6499646

Ben – here is a customer for your Origen data

Please send it to Randy Gauntt

Wayne

From: Gauntt, Randall 0 [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 7:56 PM
To: Bolger, Francis T. (GE Power & Water); Buchholz, Carol E. (GE Power & Water); Ellison, Phillip G (GE Power & Water); Ginsberg, Robert (GE Power & Water); Klapproth, James F (GE Power & Water); Marquino, Wayne (GE Power &Water); ‘[email protected]’; Madronero, Hernando (GE Power & Water); Heck, Charles (GE Power & Water); Loewen, Eric (GE Power & Water); Crawford, Douglas C (GNF); ‘[email protected]’; Upton, Hugh A. (GE Power & Water)
Cc: ‘[email protected]
Subject: RE: Fuku-4 Fuel Pool – impact of dry pool -call#3 – 800-501-0843 code 6499646

Is there any way anyone at GE could provide Sandia TONIGHT an Origen inventory that might approximate the SFP 4 inventory for the 100 day offload? We atrying to run a MACCS analysis for NRC tonight and need isotope mass and curies.

Randy Gauntt

Previous Article

March 20th, 2011 – The public inquiry desk is still being hit pretty hard since things aren’t quickly improving overseas

Next Article

March 21st, 2011 – Clarification and assessment of potential radiological release source terms for Fukushima Units 3&4 spent fuel pools

Leave a Reply