performed by Sandia.19
If the water level is above the top of the fuel racks, decay heat in the fuel could cause the pool water to boil. Once water levels fall below a certain level in the fuel assembly, the exposed portion of the fuel cladding might heat up sufficiently to ignite if no mitigative actions were taken. This could result in the release of a substantial fraction of the cesium inventory to the environment in the form of aerosols.
A zirconium cladding fire in the presence of steam could generate hydrogen gas over the course of the event. The generation and transport of hydrogen gas in air was modeled in the Sandia calculations as was the deflagration of a hydrogen-air mixture in the closed building space above the spent fuel pool The deflagration of hydrogen could enhance the release of radioactive material in some scenarios.
Sandia was just beginning to carry out a similar set of analyses for a “reference” PWR spent fuel pool when the committee completed information gathering for its classified report. There are reasons to believe that the results for a PWR pool could be somewhat different and possibly more severe, than for a BWR pool: PWR assemblies are larger, have somewhat higher burn-ups, and some assemblies sit directly over the rack feet, which may impede cooling. While PWR fuel assemblies hold more fuel, they also have more open channels within them for water circulation. The committee was told that as part of this work, a sensitivity analysis will be carried out to understand how design differences among U.S. PWRs will influence the model results.
ENTERGY Corp. has carried out independent separate-effects modeling of a PWR spent fuel pool using the MELCOR code. The analyses addressed both partial and complete loss-of-pool-coolant events for its PWR spent fuel assemblies in a region of the pool where there are no water channels in the spent fuel racks. The analyses were made for relatively fresh spent fuel assemblies (i.e., separate models were run for assemblies that had been discharged from the reactor for 4, 30, and 90 days) surrounded by four “cold” assemblies that had been discharged for two years. In general, the ENTERGY results are similar to those from the Sandia separate-effects analyses mentioned above.
Several steps could be taken to mitigate the effects of such loss-of-pool-coolant events short of removal of spent fuel from the pool. Among these are the following:
The spent fuel assemblies in the pools can be reconfigured in a “checkerboard” pattern so that newer, higher decay-heat fuel elements are surrounded by older, lower decay-heat elements. The older elements will act as radiation heat sinks in the event of a coolant loss so that the fuel is air coolable within a short time of its discharge from the reactor. Alternatively, newly discharged fuel can be placed near the pool wall, which also acts as a heat sink. ENTERGY staff estimates that reconfiguring the fuel in one of its pools into a checkerboard pattern would take only about 10 hours of extra work, but would not extend a refueling outage. Reconfiguring of fuel already in the pool could be done at any time. It does not require a reactor outage.
In a reactor core accident, heat transfer by thermal radiation is not important because all of the fuel assemblies are at approximately the same temperature. Consequently, there is no net heat transfer between them. But spent fuel pools contain assemblies of different ages, burn-ups, and decay-heat production. The hotter assemblies will radiate heat to cooler assemblies.