An Investigation of Major Component Disposal Costs for Advanced

Nuclear Reactors
By

Chumani Mokoena

Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Engineering

University of Wisconsin Madison, 2021

Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

June 2023

© 2023 Chumani Mokoena. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT a nonexclusive, worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free
license to exercise any and all rights under copyright, including to reproduce, preserve,
distribute and publicly display copies of the thesis, or release the thesis under an open-
access license.

Authored By: Chumani Mokoena

Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
17 May, 2023

Certified by: Koroush Shirvan

John C. Hardwick Associate Professor of Nuclear Science
and Engineering
Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by: Ju Li
Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
Chair, Department Committee on Graduate Students

1
2
 An Investigation of Major Component Disposal Costs for Advanced
Nuclear Reactors
by
Chumani Mokoena

Submitted to the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering

on 17 May, 2023, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Nuclear Science and Engineering

Abstract
Waste disposal is an important aspect for decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants
(NPPs) that requires an understanding of the characteristics of the waste forms. The costs
of disposal depend on the activity, volume, dose rate and waste handling/packaging. The
U.S. average nuclear reactor age is 40 years old, with many pursuing license extensions.
Decommissioning costs are several hundred million dollars, with waste disposal alone
predicted to cost over $100 million by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The current NPP fleet is exclusively made of light water reactors and as such there are no
detailed study of decommissioning for advanced reactors that are being developed for
deployment. This work modelled activity and benchmarked the disposal costs for a
Pressurized Water Reactor’s (PWR) components (core shroud, barrel and reactor pressure
vessel) against previous work funded by the NRC. The same methodology was then applied
towards characterizing disposal costs for a Molten Salt Reactor.

Both a crude analytical method that is accessible to the general community and more
detailed numerical method with MCNPX and CINDER90 were used to estimate the activity
of the reactor vessel and its internals. Disposal costs are based on the Texas Low Level
Waste (LLW) facility. Generally, the analytical method overestimated the flux and/or
activity of components closer to the core such as the core barrel (PWR) or MSR internals.
However, the waste classification was consistent for both methods. The nuclides
contributing to the long-term activity of the components throughout the study were Ni-59,
Co-60 and Ni-63, while the nuclides with a half-life less than five-years dominated the
initial total activity. The PWR core shroud, barrel and vessel were designated as greater
than Class C, Class C and Class A, respectively. Based on the disposal costs of the PWR
components analyzed, the levelized cost of disposal for a PWR was scaled to be $0.68-
$0.9/MWh assuming a 40-year operating lifetime, below the $1/MWh that is typically
budgeted.

The MSR analysis focused on the activity and disposal costs of the graphite reflectors, core
can/shroud, and reactor vessel. Metal components were modelled as either SS316 or
Hastelloy N based with an operating period of 5 to 10 years. Graphite reflectors were Class

3
C waste with a specific disposal cost of about $2,200/kg. The core can was greater than
Class C waste for both Hastelloy N and SS316. The vessel was Class C for SS316 (5-10
years) and Class C for Hastelloy N (5-7 years) before becoming greater than Class C waste
for a 10-year operating lifetime. MSR disposal costs were computed with and without a
PWR activation charge limits assuming both an immediate disposal (high cost) and
disposal after a 20-year decay period after plant shutdown (low cost). Without activation
cost limits, the total levelized cost of disposal is $8.27 to an enormous $779/MWh but the
range reduces to $7.25-$20.10/MWh if limits on activation charge are imposed. In all
scenarios, the MSR disposal of the reactor vessel and its internals alone were larger than
$1/MWh commonly assumed for light water reactors. In addition, the noted cost does not
include increased scope for fueled-salt cleanup and decontamination of the considered
components as well as primary piping and heat exchangers. Therefore, this work motivates
advanced reactor developers, particularly, the MSR community, to estimate the disposal
cost of their technologies as it may play an important role in their economic viability.

Thesis Supervisor: Koroush Shirvan

Title: John C. Hardwick Associate Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering

4
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Koroush Shirvan, for his guidance
throughout my graduate studies. It took me a few months to adjust to MIT and Prof. Shirvan
exhibited a lot of patience with peers and I. Given the number of students he mentors, I am
amazed at his dedication to ensure that each and every one of us is producing our best work
whether its in the classroom or for our research. This has been encouraging and resulted in
me producing what I believe to be an impactful academic contribution in the nuclear waste
domain.

Prof. Buongiorno and Prof. Forget taught me my first classes at MIT and set the standard
for what I could expect from this world class institution. Those first few months were
difficult and often pushed me beyond my comfort zone. It is during the first semester that
I deepened my understanding of nuclear reactor systems and ultimately developed my
confidence as an engineer in training. I would therefore like to thank Prof Buongiorno and
Prof Forget for encouraging me to grow and become more confident in my abilities.

On campus, I met exceptional individuals whom I was lucky enough to share an office
with. To Ruaridh, Isabel and Robbie, I would like to thank you for your friendship,
guidance and patience with me. I simply would not have excelled at MIT without your
valued contributions in my life. I look forward to staying in touch and witnessing how life
progresses for you all. Anna, while we only shared one class and assisted with the reactor
technology course over the summer, you have been a highly dependable research partner
that I am grateful for. I wish you all the best with your PhD.

Lastly, I would like to thank people who have been instrumental in my progress up to this
point. This includes family, my partner, the Welches, the Goughs, the Morgridges, the
Hechts and past educators. Given the difficult path that has gotten me here, I simply wish
to dedicate this milestone to my late mother who sacrificed everything to prepare me for
the world, even in her absence. Through me, her wishes for a better life are being realized
in real time.

5
6
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 16
1.1 Background and Motivation .................................................................................. 17
1.2 Thesis Objective .................................................................................................... 23
2. Analytical Approach for Estimation of Disposal Cost ..................................... 24
2.1 Manufacturing costs for Stainless Steels and Hastelloy N .................................... 28
2.2 PWR Radioactivity Estimation.............................................................................. 28
2.2.1 PWR Disposal costs .......................................................................................... 33
2.3 MSR Analytical Radioactivity Estimation ............................................................ 35
2.3.1 RPV and Internals Disposal Costs ..................................................................... 40
2.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis on Power uprate Impact .................................................... 43
2.4 MSR Specific Costs............................................................................................... 46
3. MCNPX PWR MODEL ...................................................................................... 48
3.1 MCNPX and CINDER90 overview ...................................................................... 48
3.2 PWR design ........................................................................................................... 49
3.2 Activation analysis ................................................................................................ 54
3.2.1 Results ............................................................................................................... 55
3.3 Disposal Costs ....................................................................................................... 63
4. MCNPX MSR MODEL ...................................................................................... 69
4.1 MSR Design .......................................................................................................... 69
4.2 MSR Activation analysis ....................................................................................... 75
4.2.1 Results ............................................................................................................... 76
4.3 MSR Disposal costs............................................................................................... 85
5. Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 90
5.1 PWR sensitivity ..................................................................................................... 91
5.2 MSR sensitivity ..................................................................................................... 93
5.3 PWR activation sensitivity to flux and component mass increases. ...................... 99
5.4 MSR base case disposal cost sensitivity to PWR activation and handling charge
limits. ............................................................................................................................. 103
6. Conclusion and Future Work ........................................................................... 105
References ................................................................................................................................... 109
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 115

7
Appendix B.................................................................................................................................. 127
Appendix C.................................................................................................................................. 129
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................. 136
Appendix E .................................................................................................................................. 143
Appendix F .................................................................................................................................. 144

8
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Location of nuclear energy generators in the US. The purple shaded areas are
regulated markets and yellow are competitive markets [4]. ............................................. 18
Figure 2-1: Disposal cost drivers for an MSR design after 10 years of operation. ........... 41
Figure 3-1: Radial and axial model of the Trojan NPP reactor [19] ................................. 49
Figure 3-2: Cross section of full RPV plus internals for the PWR concept. ..................... 51
Figure 3-3: Radial variation of flux at different axial positions in the RPV. z= 319.38cm,
is the bottom region of the core (ΔF=±2.37%) , z=532.29cm is close to the core midplane
(ΔF=±1.13%), z=702.62cm is the core top region (ΔF=±1.37%). Note: y-axis has been ind
........................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 3-4: Average flux axially varying across the height of the RPV (ΔF=±10%). ...... 54
Figure 3-5: Specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10 CFR,
section 61.55. .................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3-6: Specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10 CFR,
section 61.55. .................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3-7: Specific activity for the shroud overall. ......................................................... 57
Figure 3-8: : Barrel specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10
CFR, section 61.55............................................................................................................ 58
Figure 3-9: Barrel specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10
CFR, section 61.55............................................................................................................ 59
Figure 3-10: Barrel overall specific activity. .................................................................... 59
Figure 3-11: Vessel cylinder specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the
NRC’s 10 CFR, section 61.55........................................................................................... 61
Figure 3-12: Vessel cylinder specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the
NRC’s 10 CFR, section 61.55........................................................................................... 62
Figure 3-13: Overall vessel cylinder specific activity....................................................... 62
Figure 3-14: Core shroud disposal for 30 and 40-year operating lifetime cost comparison
with the reference case. 10-year SAFSTOR refers to a 10-year decay period before disposal
of the shroud assuming 40-year operating lifetime........................................................... 66

9
Figure 3-15: Core barrel disposal for 30 and 40-year operating lifetime cost comparison
with the reference case. 10-year SAFSTOR refers to a 10-year decay period before disposal
of the shroud assuming 40-year operating lifetime. .......................................................... 67
Figure 3-16: Vessel Cylinder disposal cost comparison with the reference case. ............. 67
Figure 4-1: MSRE vessel cross section (left) and Terrestrial’s IMSR module cross section
[34] [18]. ............................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 4-2: MCNPX MSR Model cross section. ............................................................... 72
Figure 4-3: Radial variation of flux at different axial positions in the MSR RPV. At
z=82.26cm is approximately midway of the lower fuel salt region (ΔF = ±5.34%); z=
152.77cm is the bottom region of the core (ΔF = ±0.32%); z=340.79cm is close to the core
midplane ............................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 4-4: Average axial flux profile (ΔF = ±62.2%). ..................................................... 75
Figure 4-5: Graphite reflector specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the
NRC’s 10 CFR, section 61.55. .......................................................................................... 76
Figure 4-6: Graphite reflector specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the
NRC’s 10 CFR, section 61.55. .......................................................................................... 77
Figure 4-7: Graphite reflector total specific activity. ........................................................ 77
Figure 4-8: Core can specific activity for long-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316:
........................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 4-9: Core can specific activity for short-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS31679
Figure 4-10: Core can total specific. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316 ........................................ 79
Figure 4-11: Vessel Cylinder specific activity for long-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b)
SS316................................................................................................................................. 82
Figure 4-12: Vessel Cylinder specific activity for short-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b)
SS316................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 4-13: Vessel Cylinder total specific activity. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316 ................ 83
Figure 4-14: Graphite reflector disposal costs for the MSR. ............................................. 85
Figure 4-15: Core can disposal costs for the MSR. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316 .................. 86
Figure 4-16:Vessel cylinder disposal costs for the MSR. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316 ........ 87
Figure 5-1: Comparing CINDER and PNNL ORIGEN model disposal costs for PWR
components from the after 30 years of operation. CINDER 10-year decay period costs are
also shown. Top left: Core Shroud; Top right: Core Barrel; Bottom: Vessel Cylinder. Each
10
plot compares the PNNL result with the PWR model results from Chapter 3, and higher
flux and thickness PWR cases for 30 years of operation and disposal after 10 years of safe
storage following a 40-year operating lifetime. .............................................................. 102
Figure 5-2: Disposal cost summary for Hastelloy N MSR components. Left: Core can;
Right: Vessel Cylinder. Note that the 20yr SAFSTOR refers to the disposal cost after a 20-
year decay period following 10 years of operation. ........................................................ 104
Figure 5-3: Disposal cost summary for SS316 MSR components. Left: Core can; Right:
Vessel Cylinder. Note that the 20yr SAFSTOR refers to the disposal cost after a 20-year
decay period following 10 years of operation................................................................. 104

11
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Decommissioned nuclear power plant costs in the US. The dollar numbers have
been escalated from December of year of estimate/actual cost outcome to February 2023
using CPI [11].................................................................................................................... 21
Table 2-1: Basic Parameters for the MSR/PWR designs. ................................................. 25
Table 2-2: SA508 RPV material compositions by weight percentage [19]....................... 26
Table 2-3: SS304 RPV material compositions by weight percentage [19]. ...................... 26
Table 2-4: SS316 RPV material compositions by weight percentage with varying cobalt
weight percentages [20] . ................................................................................................... 27
Table 2-5: Hastelloy N RPV material compositions by weight percentage [21]............... 27
Table 2-6: Texas site LLW disposal fees [27, 6]. .............................................................. 29
Table 2-7: Variable constants for computing radioactivity in the PWR vessel and core
barrel. ................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 2-8: Material properties and neutron flux experienced by the vessel wall and core
barrel in the RPV [19]. ...................................................................................................... 32
Table 2-9: Specific activity in the vessel cylinder and core barrel for operating period of 40
years and a one month decay period.................................................................................. 33
Table 2-10: Reference PWR RPV and lower core barrel disposal costs for this work
compared to NRC’s published disposal costs. Note that the NRC results exclude dose rate
surcharges for consistency with the analytical results. ...................................................... 34
Table 2-11: : Material properties and neutron flux experienced by the vessel wall and its
internals (Internals were assumed to have similar mass as the exterior RPV as a
approximation). ................................................................................................................. 35
Table 2-12: Variable constants for computing radioactivity in the MSR vessel. .............. 36
Table 2-13: Specific activities for RPVs composed of Hastelloy N for irradiation and decay
periods often years and one month respectively. ............................................................... 37
Table 2-14: Specific activities for RPVs composed of SS316 for irradiation and decay
periods of ten years and one month respectively............................................................... 37

12
Table 2-15: Specific activities for RPVs composed of Hastelloy N for irradiation and decay
periods of five years and one month respectively. ............................................................ 37
Table 2-16: Specific activities for RPVs composed of SS316 for irradiation and decay
periods of five years and one month respectively. ............................................................ 38
Table 2-17: Specific activities for RPV internals composed of Hastelloy N for irradiation
and decay periods of ten years and one month respectively. ............................................ 39
Table 2-18: Specific activities for RPV internals composed of SS316 for irradiation and
decay periods of ten years and one month respectively. ................................................... 39
Table 2-19: Summary of the total disposal cost for a MSR vessel over different lifetime
periods. .............................................................................................................................. 42
Table 2-20: MSR total costs summarized according to waste classification of the vessel.
........................................................................................................................................... 46
Table 3-1: General reactor core specifications [45]. ......................................................... 50
Table 3-2: Density [45]. .................................................................................................... 50
Table 3-3: Masses of core composites. ............................................................................. 50
Table 3-4: Weight percent as input into MCNPX material card. ...................................... 51
Table 3-5: Total flux results for the volumetric and watt spectrum sources. .................... 52
Table 3-6: Core shroud specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for
MCNPX model PWR vs reference PWR.......................................................................... 58
Table 3-7: Core Barrel specific activity after 30 to 40-year of full power operation for
MCNPX model PWR vs reference PWR.......................................................................... 60
Table 3-8: Vessel specific activity after 30 to 40-year of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR. ........................................................................................ 63
Table 4-1: MSRE reactor materials [47]. .......................................................................... 69
Table 4-2: MSRE fuel salt composition [34]. ................................................................... 71
Table 4-3: Mass wt% of uranium nuclides in fuel salt mixture [34]. ............................... 71
Table 4-4: MSRE Core graphite and fuel salt dimensions [34]. ....................................... 71
Table 4-5: Total flux results for the MSR volumetric and watt spectrum sources. .......... 73
Table 4-6: Graphite reflector activity at 5-10 years of operation and a 20-year decay period
for shutdown after 10 years of operation. ......................................................................... 78

13
Table 4-7: Hastelloy N core can activity at 5 to 10 years of operation and a 20-year decay
period for shutdown after 10 years of operation. .............................................................. 81
Table 4-8: SS316 core can activity at 5 to 10 years of operation and a 20-year decay period
for shutdown after 10 years of operation. .......................................................................... 81
Table 4-9: Hastelloy N vessel cylinder activity at 5 to 10 years of operation and a 20-year
decay period for shutdown after 10 years of operation. .................................................... 84
Table 4-10: SS316 vessel cylinder activity at 5 to10 years of operation and a 20-year decay
period for shutdown after 10 years of operation. .............................................................. 84
Table 4-11: Summary of MCNPX MSR disposal cost range for 5 to 10 years of operation
and 20-year decay period post shutdown. ......................................................................... 88
Table 5-1: Core shroud specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for
MCNPX model PWR. ....................................................................................................... 91
Table 5-2: Core Barrel specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for
MCNPX model PWR. ....................................................................................................... 92
Table 5-3: Vessel specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR. ...................................................................................................................... 93
Table 5-4: Reduced nitrogen content graphite reflector activity for an operating period of
5 to 10-years and a 20 year decay period following a 10-year operating lifetime. ........... 94
Table 5-5: Hastelloy N activity for core can with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an
operating period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.
........................................................................................................................................... 95
Table 5-6: SS316 activity for core can with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an
operating period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.
........................................................................................................................................... 96
Table 5-7: Hastelloy N vessel cylinder activity with no cobalt impurity. Model considers
an operating period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating
period. ................................................................................................................................ 97
Table 5-8: SS316 vessel cylinder activity with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an
operating period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.
........................................................................................................................................... 98
Table 5-9: Results for the increase in component thickness.............................................. 99

14
Table 5-10: Core shroud specific activity after 30 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR. ...................................................................................... 100
Table 5-11: Core Barrel specific activity after 30 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR. ...................................................................................... 101
Table 5-12: Vessel specific activity after 30 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs PNNL reference PWR. .......................................................................... 101
Table 5-13: Summary of disposal costs for MSR components with PWR activation charge
limits imposed. ................................................................................................................ 104
Table 6-1: Levelized costs of disposal for major reactor components modelled. ........... 107

15
1. Introduction
Nuclear energy has been a commercial technology since the mid-20th century and
continues to do so despite the various challenges it has faced related to high build costs,
waste disposal and plant safety concerns. Three major accidents (Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, and Fukushima) have contributed to making nuclear an unfavorable energy
technology in some countries by the general public and their governments. This has
propelled the industry into designing systems with the highest regard for safety through
defense-in-depth engineering.

Nuclear waste is one of the most controversial topics in the fission energy industry. The
management of waste inventory is a complex process that requires meticulous planning by
regulators, and nuclear asset owners/operators. Waste management can take different forms
and covers intra and post operational responsibilities such as spent fuel storage or
decommissioning of a plant and safe disposal of its components. Connecticut Yankee
Power Plant decommissioning demonstrated that, soil and groundwater contamination can
be a significant source of waste volume at nuclear power plants during decommissioning
[1]. Managing nuclear waste carries significant costs which are important to understand for
maximizing cost efficiency, whilst maintaining the highest regard for public and
environmental safety by nuclear stakeholders.

A nuclear power plant consists of many different components. This paper presents a
technoeconomic study of the disposal costs for select major components within the Reactor
Pressure Vessel (RPV) boundary of a reactor. The focus of the study is on benchmarking
the disposal costs of a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), and ultimately offering a range
of probable costs of disposal for advanced reactors such as Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs).

16
1.1 Background and Motivation

Decommissioning of nuclear power plants is an end of lifecycle management process. The

process involves the permanent shutdown of the power plant, removing fuel,
decontaminating components, and demolishing structures within the bounds of the plant
site boundary [2]. Ultimately, the objective is to rehabilitate the land for use by future
generations for economic activities such as building factories, schools or other valuable
infrastructure [3]. Nuclear power plants across the world are aging, with very limited new
capacity additions coming online in western countries. In 2013, the average nuclear power
plant was 28 years old globally [2]. In 2022, the average age of nuclear power plants in the
United States (US) was approximately 40 years old [4]. While many US utilities are pursing
license extensions, the industry faces significant macroeconomic challenges that have
rendered some reactors uneconomical to continue operating. Electricity market
deregulation in the 1990s was favorable to existing nuclear power plants but with
penetration of low natural gas prices in the 2010s and subsidized intermittent renewables,
significant pressure was put on the revenues of plants in competitive markets. This
ultimately led to the closure of plants that were unprofitable and could not secure political
support for establishment of auxiliary revenue streams akin to those of wind and solar in
the form of zero emissions credits or production tax credits. Approximately half of nuclear
power plants in the US are in regulated electricity markets, which follow a cost of service
regulatory regime. This type of market ensures full renumeration of nuclear energy
providers plus a target return on investment. In theory, regulated power market suppliers
are generally much more secure than their peers in competitive power markets. The variety
in power supply technologies and relative lack of cost competitiveness of nuclear power,
several facilities in both markets are at risk of premature closure due to financial hardship
as shown in Figure 1-1.

17
 Figure 1-1: Location of nuclear energy generators in the US. The purple shaded areas are
regulated markets and yellow are competitive markets [5].

In other Europe, reactors have been forced to shut down earlier than their license expiration
dates due to political pressures inspired in part, by the aftermath of the Fukushima accident
of 2011. Japan had to shut down a significant portion of its fleet following the accident at
its Fukushima Daiichi.

The above circumstances provide a reasonable pretext for prioritizing the planning and
policy stance towards the decommissioning of nuclear energy assets. The US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires all licensees to assume financial responsibility for
the cost of fully decommissioning their nuclear plants. The licensees of the reactor can
establish a fund and set aside a lump sum payment to grow for a predetermined investment
horizon or continually deposit into it until maturation (when the reactor is permanently shut
down) [6].Each licensee is, however, required to meet minimum financial assurance
standards that show the fund will be able to fulfill the decommissioning obligations
required by the NRC. The minimum amount is computed annually for Pressurized Water
Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) based on scaling factors that were

18
established by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) on the decommissioning
costs of a benchmark PWR and BWR reactor in 1986 dollars. Equation 1 provides the
formula that determines the minimum amount required by the NRC to satisfy the financial
assurance requirements [7].

𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 𝑋𝑋) = (1986 $ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐) [𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥 + 𝐵𝐵𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥 + 𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 ] (1)

Variables 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥 , 𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥 , and 𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 represent the scaling factors for costs of labor, energy, and
disposal respectively between 1986 and year X. Variable A, B, C are coefficients that
represents the fraction of the costs in the 1980s study that attributed to labor, energy, and
waste disposal costs respectively. The NRC recommends assigning the average values
A=0.65, B=0.13, and C=0.22 to both BWRs and PWRs. 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥 , 𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥 , and 𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 will vary annually
depending on macroeconomic conditions of preceding and current times. More details on
the methodology of the establishment of the coefficients and scaling factors is given in
[7].The 1986-dollar cost varies with thermal power rating and reactor type. PWR
specifications are as follows:
𝑃𝑃 ≥ 3400𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ $105 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(2)
1200 < 𝑃𝑃 < 3400 $(75 + 0.0088𝑃𝑃) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
BWR specifications are as follows:
𝑃𝑃 ≥ 3400𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ $135 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
(3)
1200 < 𝑃𝑃 < 3400 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀ℎ $(104 + 0.009𝑃𝑃) 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
P is the power level in MW thermal. If the reactor is less than 1200MW of thermal output,
then apply P=1200MWth in the formula. The fund value output in equation 1 is revisited
annually by the NRC to ensure general compliance by licensees. Applying this to an
example reactor with power level of atleast 3400MWth, that is located in the western USA,
and is unaffiliated with any particular waste disposal facility, the minimum funding
requirement upon initiation of decommissioning can be computed. Assuming analysis for
the period ending in December 2022, the scaling factors 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥 , 𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥 , and 𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 can be computed
using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) employment cost index (ECI),
producer price index (PPI) and waste disposal costs (by facility). Below are the formulas
guiding the determination of 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥 , and 𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥 [7] [8]:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥,2022 𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥,2005
𝐿𝐿𝑥𝑥,2022 = = 3.29 (4)
100

19
 0.58𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥,2022 + 0.42𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥,2022 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐸𝐸𝑥𝑥,2022 = (5)
0.54𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥,2022 + 0.46𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥,2022 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0543 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2022
𝑃𝑃𝑥𝑥,2022 = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0543 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 1986
= 3.446 (6)
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0573 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 2022
𝐹𝐹𝑥𝑥,2022 = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 0573 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽𝐽 1986
=3.541 (7)

Considering a power plant which is not situated within states that have an active and
available disposal facility [7]:
13.711 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐵𝐵𝑥𝑥 = (8)
12.296 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
Combining all of the elements in equations 1-8, the fund balance at decommissioning at
the end of 2022 should be $588 million for a PWR, and $556.6 million for a BWR. This is
a useful result for regulators to audit and exert oversight on utilities that own nuclear assets
to ensure they maintain a minimum financial standard that inspires confidence in their
ability to successfully decommission their nuclear power plants. Utilities can also use this
methodology to gauge progress and fund performance that enables them to rebalance their
assets such that, the fund liabilities are on track to be satisfied upon decommissioning. The
NRC’s methodology for fund benchmarking still carries risks which could render it
insufficient in satisfying actual costs of decommissioning for every reactor.

Lorden-Perret, Sloan and Rosner, explore financial risks associated with decommissioning
nuclear plants that are related to existing corporate law structures and macro conditions in
the power markets [5]. They cite project cost overruns, severe nuclear accidents,
bankruptcy of nuclear power plant parent companies, and prolonged financial/energy
recessions. The U.S. nuclear industry is notorious for consistently delivering overbudget
projects on the construction side which makes it unlikely for decommissioning to exude
different outcomes. Vogtle unit 3&4 and VC summer are prime examples of US nuclear
construction projects which ultimately went severely over budget, with the latter being
cancelled in 2017 [9]. The two AP1000’s at Vogtle cost Georgian rate payers over $30
billion with unit 3 recently being connected to the grid in early 2023 [10] [11]. In addition
to construction cost overrun evidence, decommissioning cost estimates by the NRCs
methodology consistently underestimated actual costs. Table 1-1 summarizes
decommissioning project outcomes.

20
Table 1-1: Decommissioned nuclear power plant costs in the US. The dollar numbers have been
escalated from December of year of estimate/actual cost outcome to February 2023 using CPI
[12].

Plant Decommissioning Thermal True cost NRC Discrepancy

Name timeline Capacity (2023$ estimate factor
(MWt) millions) (2023$
millions)

Haddam 1997-2007 1825 1033 492 2.1x

Neck

Maine 1997-2005 2700 648 562 1.15

Yankee

Rancho 1994-2009 2772 549 507 1.08x

Trojan 1993-2005 3411 388 356 1.09x

Empirical evidence shows NRC fund minimum requirements underestimate the cost of
decommissioning by 8-110%. This is a large margin of uncertainty for the extent to which
costs can run over budget. Notably, project management costs related to labor, materials
and equipment were the largest cost item (42-53%) for decommissioning activities [12].
This contrasts greatly with the NRC’s methodology which suggested that LLW disposal
costs would generally be the largest expense in the decommissioning process at 38-61% of
total costs [12].

A major nuclear accident like Chernobyl of Fukushima would require significantly more
financial resources than under normal decommissioning circumstances. A typical nuclear
power plant owner would likely not have enough in their decommissioning funds to cover
this expense, thus requiring additional funds. Utilities with nuclear power plants contribute
to an insurance fund which would cover up to $450 million in additional liabilities in the
event of a severe accident that affects the surrounding community beyond the plant site
boundary [5].There exist secondary funding mechanisms to help pay for liabilities in the
event of a severe accident. If this additional funding is insufficient to cover damages, state
and federal government would have to intervene. This makes the tax payer ultimately liable
for unaddressed costs related to decommissioning such a power plant.

21
Financial difficulty experienced by a nuclear power plant due to energy/financial market
downturns could threaten a successful decommissioning project. In an environment with
low energy prices, nuclear plants could struggle to cover operating costs and pay into the
decommissioning fund. This could result in premature closure of the plant without
sufficient funds to commence decommissioning. Financial performance of a fund is
dependent on a variety of factors which include but are not limited to duration of assets,
interest rates, and diversification. A prolonged financial recession can depress the portfolio
value, thus putting the licensee at risk of not being able to fulfill decommissioning
obligations fully. This would prevent a nuclear power plant from pursuing immediate
dismantling (DECON). The NRC allows up to 60 years for decommissioning after
permanently shutting the power plant [13]. Deferred dismantling (SAFSTOR) allows a
plant owner to utilize the 60-year grace period to achieve different objectives within the
decommissioning process [13]. This enables the owners to continue investing in the fund
such that it recovers and can cover the costs of decommissioning in full. Additionally,
owners could opt to maintain the reactor for several years or decades to allow radioactive
nuclides to decay and ultimately making it cheaper to decontaminate and dispose of the
different types of waste products.

It is clear that large financial risks exist in the decommissioning process which the NRCs
methodology does not completely account for. The data from Table 1-1 shows that project
management costs are a major cost driver based on empirical evidence, with
decontamination being secondary to that. The data points on completed decommissioning
projects in the US are limited, however this provides some insight into the importance of
understanding the cost structure and focusing on efforts to drive cost efficiencies that make
it easier to predict the total project financials.

While the focus of this work is on a subset of US waste decommissioning activities,

regulators and companies in Europe and Japan face similar uncertainties related to cost and
timing. As more nuclear power plants around the world reach the end of their license
provisions, decommissioning will become more of a common practice which will require
significant expertise to conduct successfully. All aspects of decommissioning require

22
thorough review for planning and financial preparedness by nuclear power plant owners.
The manner in which countries deal with decommissioning of existing nuclear assets will
have lasting impact for future generations. If they develop new nuclear technologies, they
will seek inspiration for best practices in waste management from the current fleet.

1.2 Thesis Objective

The following Chapters will work through formulating cost projections on the disposal of
LLW at the Texas Compact Waste Facility. The cost projections will produce results for
PWR, and MSR components. The goal of the thesis is to provide guidance and a tool on
potential costs of disposing various components assuming no surcharges for non-affiliated
state waste disposal. There will be two subsets of analyses provided for each reactor type.
First, an analytical approach to computing component activation followed by a numerical
approach utilizing MCNPX and CINDER to implement a basic PWR and MSR model that
can be studied for activation at different time horizons of irradiation. The activity results
will inform disposal cost inputs which are compared with results from the literature.

Chapter 2 will present the methodology and results of the analytical approach and compare
the PWR benchmark with the work conducted by E.S Murphy at Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL) on the technology, safety and costs of Decommissioning the
Trojan Nuclear Power Station [14]. Chapter 3 will similarly explore the methodology and
results of the numerical models for PWR reactor design and activation analysis with
commentary on the results relative to the PNNL report. Chapter 4 details the design,
activation analysis, and disposal costs of the MSR. Chapter 5 discusses activation
sensitivity of the MCNPX models to impurities, flux and component thickness increases.
This Chapter also considers a case of the MSR modelled with PWR disposal cost limits.
Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the conclusions of the analysis, and suggests areas to
investigate further in characterizing disposal costs and ultimately advancing
decommissioning modelling efforts. The appendix will include some supplementary
information related to MCNPX, CINDER inputs/output, and supporting Tables/plots the
thesis.

23
2. Analytical Approach for Estimation
of Disposal Cost

The methodology pursued in this study involves two primary approaches: the first employs
analytical equations to estimate the activity of the most prominent nuclides (Focus of this
Chapter), and the second applies numerical code bases to model a homogenous reactor and
calculate the activity (Focus of Chapters 3 and 4). The motivation for the analytical
approach is to compare its merit to the numerical code approach. Since many opponents
of nuclear energy and those who are concerned with nuclear waste will typically employ
analytical means [15, 16] as obtaining export controlled numerical codes is burdensome,
the outcome of this comparison can inform that community on an accessible methodology
for estimating the nuclear waste disposal.

The analytical approach focuses on benchmarking the hand calculations for the PWR
reference design to the literature and ultimately applying a similar methodology towards
computing activation of nuclides such as Ni-59, Ni-64 and Co-60 for an MSR design
concept. The results of these activity calculations inform the inputs for computing disposal
costs for large components in the primary side. For simplicity, the PWR analysis focuses
on computing activity for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) cylinder and the core barrel.
The core barrel’s main function is to support the reactor core. It also guides the flow
direction of the coolant, and is crucial in promoting mechanical safety in the core during
normal and accident conditions [17]. Defense in depth design philosophy specifies that the
reactor pressure vessel is one of the physical barriers that is designed to prevent the release
of radioactive material. It serves as the second last line of defense (before the containment).

MSR analysis covers the RPV and subsequently generalizes the activity for components
internal to the RPV. Moreover, the MSRs are analyzed for RPV activity and considers
cases where the base material is SS316 or Hastelloy N. The PWR RPV and core barrel

24
material is widely accepted to be low carbon steel (SA508) and SS304 respectively. Thus,
they will be the sole materials considered for each component.

Terrestrial Power and FLIBE’s design concepts are the chosen case studies for this
analysis. Their respective basic design parameters are shown in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Basic Parameters for the MSR/PWR designs.

FLIBE [18] Terrestrial Power Trojan Plant PWR design

[19] [20]
Electrical/Thermal Power 250/600 200/400 1175/3500
[MWe/MWth]
RPV total Height (m) 5.717 7 13.17
ID (m) 4.861 3.5 4.394
Thickness (m) 0.05 0.05 0.216
Operating Pressure (kPa) 552 500 15500
Operating Temp (°C) 704 700 290-325

Component material SS316 (RPV) SS316 or SA508 (RPV)/SS304 (Core

Hastelloy N barrel)
(RPV)

Hastelloy N and SS316 are desirable materials due to their favorable mechanical properties
for the targeted operating temperature. In MSRs the coolant is a molten salt which could
lead to excess corrosion and therefore resistance to these effects is paramount in the MSR
design considerations. Furthermore, the alloy has to maintain an acceptable level of
ductility over the course of its irradiation cycle. Table 2-2 to 2-5 summarizes the
compositions of SA508, SS304, Hastelloy N and SS316, respectively.

25
Table 2-2: SA508 RPV material compositions by weight percentage [19].

w/o %
Chromium 0.51
Molybdenum 0.63
Nickel 0.72
Iron 94.63
Cobalt 0-0.012
Silicon 0.31
Carbon 0.24
Sulfur 0.04
Phosphorus 0.035
Manganese 2.8
Nitrogen 0.01
Copper 0.076

Table 2-3: SS304 RPV material compositions by weight percentage [19].

w/o %
Manganese 2.00
Chromium 17.5
Nickel 10.1
Iron 68.88
Cobalt 0-0.15
Silicon 1.00
Carbon 0.08
Sulfur 0.03
Phosphorus 0.0004
Nitrogen 0.04
Molybdenum 0.05
Copper 0.15
Niobium 0.016

26
 Table 2-4: SS316 RPV material compositions by weight percentage with varying cobalt weight
percentages [20] .
w/o%
Carbon 0.06
Silicon 1
Manganese 2
Phosphorus 0.03
Sulfur 0.02
Chromium 18
Molybdenum 3
Nickel 12.25-12.5
Aluminum 0.05
Nitrogen 0.07
Cobalt 0-0.25
Iron 63.27

Table 2-5: Hastelloy N RPV material compositions by weight percentage [21].

w/o %
Manganese 0.47
Chromium 7.01
Molybdenum 18.9
Nickel 67.39-68.77
Iron 4.18
Cobalt 0-1.38
Silicon 0.41
Aluminum 0.26

Chromium is particularly useful in either alloy because it improves corrosion resistance

[21]. Molybdenum serves a similar function thereby increasing the resilience of SS316 and
Hastelloy N against the harmful corrosion effects of molten salts. SS304 similarly has good
corrosion resistance due to the chromium, however it has lower corrosion resistance than
SS316/Hastelloy N. Still, it maintains desirable levels of mechanical strength and ductility
at the operating temperatures of a PWR. Elevated temperatures and radiation can accelerate
corrosion, therefore it is critical for the materials in nuclear reactors to be suited for the
extreme environments near the core. Cobalt is an impurity of nickel, and is assumed to be
2% of the combined nickel-cobalt content for SS316 and Hastelloy N [22]. In SA508 and

27
SS304, cobalt is approximately 1.5% of the nickel content [20]. SA508 has excellent
strength properties and exhibits high fracture toughness, in addition to being readily
manufacturable and relatively low cost [23] [24].

2.1 Manufacturing costs for Stainless Steels and Hastelloy N

The cost analysis for the MSR vessel is mainly analyzing the disposal costs associated with
the component. It is however a useful exercise to understand what are the relative
manufacturing costs for stainless and low-alloy steels. The manufacturing costs were
derived from past work done by F. Ganda. It is reported that low-alloy and stainless steel
components should be estimated to cost, $140,000 and $310, 000 (2018 dollars) per metric
ton respectively [25]; Hastelloy N by comparison is estimated to cost $430,000 per metric
ton [25]. Ganda’s analysis for the stainless-steel numbers stems from a cost analysis
completed on a liquid metal fast breeder reactor vessel composed of SS304. Hastelloy N’s
cost estimates are similarly derived from a conceptual molten salt breeder reactor vessel
cost estimation, both of which were done in the late 1970s. These numbers are applied to
forged and welded vessel parts.

2.2 PWR Radioactivity Estimation

There is no prior study on quantifying the costs associated with disposal of the MSR vessel
core internals. As such, the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) was treated as a reference
case to benchmark the analytical method. The reference disposal site chosen is the Texas
Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal site. South Carolina and Washington’s LLW disposal
sites were two other candidates for the study benchmarking. Since 2008, South Carolina’s
disposal site banned disposal of waste from states outside the Atlantic Compact [7, 26].
Washington’s disposal rates change regularly because they are determined by a
combination of LLW volumes, and properties. By law, the site operator’s profits are
limited annually, and any excesses are required to be refunded to customers [7, 26]. These
constraints on the South Carolina site make it difficult to determine net charges on
companies disposing LLW at the site. Texas’ LLW facility is open to receiving waste from

28
all states and its operator is not limited in its profit-making potential. This made it the most
suitable candidate for generalizing disposal costs for reactor components. Published
figures by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for disposal costs at the Texas LLW
are specific to the 3500 MWth Trojan Nuclear Plant in Rainer, Oregon which is a
Westinghouse PWR design [26, 14]. NRC’s disposal cost estimates for PWRs in the Texas,
South Carolina and Washington sites were $144.6 million, $593.2 million and $198.2
million in 2020 dollars respectively [7].

The Texas disposal site is designated for accepting LLW primarily from Vermont and
Texas as they are part of the Texas compact. Other states may also send their waste to the
facility with prior approval from the Texas Commission on Environmental quality [26].
These states would incur a surcharge for sending their waste to this facility. Table 2-6
below summarizes the disposal fees for LLW waste at the Texas facility. Note that the
Table has converted the rates from imperial to S.I. units.

Table 2-6: Texas site LLW disposal fees [27, 6].

Waste volume charge cost ($/m3) Surcharges cost

Class A LLW $3,531 curie inventory charge ($/Ci) 1 $400.00 (since 2018)
$50.00 (since 2020)
Class B and C LLW $35,315 max curie charge per shipment $200,000

sources -Class A $17,657 Weight surcharge >23,000kg’s/container $20,000

dose rate >500 Rad/hr ($/m3) $14,126

special handling per shipment $75,000

As implied by Table 2-6, the disposal costs are dependent on the radioactivity of a
particular component. This is typically a function of radiation exposure, long and short-
lived nuclides which make up the component being analyzed. Study of reference PWR data
shows that for long-lived radioactive isotopes, there are three main nuclides of concern

1
This study uses the $400/Ci rate as prior rate publications indicate an 87.5% drop in the rate is atypical
and previous rates were higher than the rates set in 2018.

29
(half-life >5 yrs) for immediate disposal of the carbon steel vessel, namely Ni-59, Ni-63,
and Co-60 [14]. Very short-lived nuclides are all grouped into one category with the
associated specific activity assigned to them. For the purposes of the discussion in this
Chapter, short-lived nuclides are defined to have a half-life shorter than five years while
long-lived nuclides have a half-life that is at least five years long [14]. Murphy’s analyses
demonstrate short-lived nuclides to account for approximately 90% of the radioactivity
from the irradiated carbon steel vessel [14].

LLW waste classifications are outlined by the NRC in regulation 10 CFR, section 61.55.
The specific activity thresholds for the various nuclides of concern are included in the
Appendix B section. The NRC outlines the criteria for evaluating LLW to be either class
A, B or C waste. Generally, the waste classification is determined by the specific activity
of the values in Appendix B’s Table 1 (long-lived nuclides). If none of these long-lived
nuclides are present, then Table 2 (short-lived) nuclides shall determine the waste
classification [27]. Section 61.55 (3)(i) specifies class A waste to be no more than 10%
(column 2) of the first column values of Table 1 in the appendix section [27]. If the specific
activity is higher than that in column two but less than column three then it is class C,
otherwise it is deemed greater than class C waste. If the long-lived nuclides are within class
A limits, the waste shall be classified according to short-lived nuclides. If they are class C,
then the waste is class C waste unless short-lived nuclides are greater than class C. Finally,
if long-lived nuclides are greater than class C, then the waste is not suitable for LLW
disposal. More detail on classifying LLW waste can be found on the NRC’s 10 CFR,
section 61.55 web page [27]. The analysis by Murphy also shows that the vessel cylindrical
wall, head and bottom are class A waste.
Hastelloy N and SS316 have Ni-60, Ni-59, Co-60 and trace amounts of C-14 to account
for as long-lived radioactive nuclides with the rest of its constitutive nuclides being short-
lived. The average specific activity of each nuclide depends on the RPV mass, volume,
thermal neutron flux which the vessel wall is exposed to, and the duration of irradiation
exposure. These relationships are well captured by the analytical expression given in
equation 9 [28]. Note that this equation does not account for other contributors to
radioactivity detected such as radiative capture in Co-59 to form a daughter nuclide like

30
Co-60. Further analysis is done to check the significance of nuclide concentration
accumulation from radiative capture in a later section of the paper.

𝐴𝐴 = 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁Φ(1 − 𝑒𝑒 −𝜆𝜆𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 )𝑒𝑒 −𝜆𝜆𝑡𝑡𝑑𝑑 (9)

𝛼𝛼 𝑚𝑚 𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴
𝑁𝑁 = (10)
𝑀𝑀

𝑚𝑚 = 𝑤𝑤 𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (11)
Where,
m: Mass of the element of concern [kg].
𝑤𝑤: Weight fraction of the element in the vessel material.
𝑀𝑀𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 : RPV mass [kg].
𝛼𝛼: Isotopic abundance of the nuclide.
M: Molar mass of the element [kg/mol].
𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴 : Avogadro’s constant (6.02 × 1023 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎/𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚).
𝜎𝜎: Microscopic Maxwellian thermal cross section [b]≡ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐−24 .
𝑛𝑛
Φ: Thermal flux [𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝑠𝑠].
1
𝜆𝜆: Decay constant [𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦].
𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 : Period of irradiation [yr].
𝑡𝑡𝑑𝑑 : Period of decay following permanent shutdown of the NPP [yr].

Equation 9 suggests the activity of the nuclide within the vessel will increase over time up
to its saturation activity level. Following shutdown, radioactive nuclides will begin
decaying which would lower their activity over time. This analysis considered the case of
an almost immediate disposal process following decommissioning of the NPP. A one-
month decay period is assumed in conducting the analysis. The irradiation periods of
concern ranged from 5-10 years for the MSR and 40 years for the PWR prior to permanent
shutdown. All elements in Hastelloy N and SS316 had short-lived isotopes except nickel,
carbon and cobalt. The reference PWR literature suggests long-lived nuclides contribute to
10% of the activity [14]; in the lower and upper core barrel, long-lived nuclides account
for 40% of the activity [14]. The PWR activation calculations will assume similar ratios
for the two classes of nuclides when benchmarking the vessel and core barrel activity
respectively. Note that specific activity refers to the total activity divided by the volume of
the component. Included in Table 2-7 and 2-8, are constant variable inputs which were
used to compute the specific activities in the vessel.

31
 Table 2-7: Variable constants for computing radioactivity in the PWR vessel and core barrel.

nuclide molar isotope wt% of the wt% of the Avogadro’s activation Half-life decay
mass abundance base base number xs [cm2] (yr) [30] constant
(kg/mol) element in element in [29] (yr-1)
the RPV the RPV
(carbon (SS304)
steel)
C-14 0.014 0.03% 0.24% 0.08% 1.50E-27 5.70E+03 1.22E-04

Ni-59 0.059 5% 0.72% 10.10% 3.99E-24 8.10E+04 8.56E-06

Nb-94 0.094 0.4% 0.00% 0.016% 1.02E-24 2.04E+04 3.40E-05

6.02E+23
Co-60 0.06 100%2 0.012% 0.15% 3.30E-23 5.27E+00 1.31E-01

Ni-63 0.063 1.50% 0.72% 10.10% 1.26E-23 1.01E+02 6.85E-03

Table 2-8: Material properties and neutron flux experienced by the vessel wall and core barrel in
the RPV [19].

PWR Vessel cylinder Core barrel

Mass [kg] 290,450 45,994
Material Low-alloy Steel SS304
Volume [𝑚𝑚3 ] 37 5.8
𝑛𝑛
Thermal flux [ ] 2.79E+09 1.33E+12
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝑠𝑠

The results in Table 2-9 can be compared to the NRC waste classification guidelines shown
in the appendix. The RPV cylinder for each of the nuclides is safely within the margins of
class A waste and is therefore classed as Class A level waste. Given the presence of very
long-lived nuclides such as C-14, and Ni-59, they are the first determining factors of waste
classification as per NRC guidelines. Since they are below class A limits, the classification
of the vessel is determined by activity of shorter-lived nuclides (Co-60, Ni-63 and nuclides
with half-life less than five years). In this instance, short-lived nuclides are all within class
A limits, therefore verifying the appropriate classification for the vessel cylinder as class
A.

The activity of long-lived nuclides in the core barrel is below class A limits, therefore short-
lived nuclides have the limiting activity. Ni-63 has an activity level which exceeds class C.

32
Co-60 and nuclides with half-life less than five years do not have upper bounds for class B
or C waste therefore the classification is determined by Ni-63. Overall this results in the
core barrel being considered as greater than class C waste. The results in Table 2-9 are
generally in good agreement with the results from the reference PWR calculations except
Co-60 and Ni-63 which have an activity that is one order of magnitude higher than the
reference [14].

Table 2-9: Specific activity in the vessel cylinder and core barrel for operating period of 40 years
and a one-month decay period.

Nuclide RPV cylinder (Ci/m3) Core barrel (Ci/m3)

C-14 1.33E-07 2.14E-05
Ni-59 2.97E-03 2.00E+01
Nb-94 - 1.61E-03
Co-60 2.33E+01 1.39E+05
Ni-63 1.84E+00 1.24E+04
less than 5 yr half-life 2.267E+02 2.272E+05
Analytical Classification CLASS A >CLASS C
PNNL/NRC classification CLASS A >CLASS C

2.2.1 PWR Disposal costs

Application of the rates for disposal of LLW material in Table 2-6 and the curie inventory
buildup in each component enables the calculation of the associated costs for disposal after
its lifetime operational cycle. The analysis of the disposal costs did not account for dose
rate or weight surcharges due to insufficient available information about the dose rates in
the waste or its container masses. Waste burial cost documentation by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) [26], outlines the disposal costs for various PWR
components at the Texas Burial site, of which the Trojan Power Plant is the reference
design. Cost allocation for disposal requires an assessment of the methodology employed
to compute activity levels in the reference design and the billable costs for disposal.
Equations 15-17 demonstrate how the rates in Table 2-6 are applied to calculate the overall
disposal costs of a component.
𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 = 𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 (15)
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 (16)

33
 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = max 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 × 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

(17)
𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 , 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 , 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 represent the total waste volume, curie inventory and special
handling charges respectively. The burial volume of a component depends on the disposal
packaging and therefore varies by component. It is provided for the reference PWR [14],
but is difficult to predict what the burial volume would be for the MSR’s vessel and its
internals relative to the full density volume. Therefore, the analysis for MSR disposal costs
assumes the full density volume to be the burial volume.

Recreation of the reference PWR burial costs revealed two key findings (see Table in
Appendix B): there is a cap placed on the activity that is billed (and in some cases the
handling costs) for each component; the total activity billed was less than 100,000 curies
despite the cumulative activity being 4.8 million curies. Some components were not
included in the benchmark analysis due to their relatively insignificant contribution to the
overall disposal costs. The PWR vessel cylinder had 19,170 curies of activity and the core
barrel 651,100 curies. Only 17,600 curies were charged for the core barrel in the disposal
costs reported in [26]. This suggests a cap on activity levels that the disposal facility will
charge for a certain component, depending on its waste classification and size. These limits
were applied when validating the activity calculation methodology applied in equations 9-
11. Table 2-10 summarizes the results of applying the activity (equations 9-11) and cost
methodology (equations 15-17).

Table 2-10: Reference PWR RPV and lower core barrel disposal costs for this work compared to
NRC’s published disposal costs. Note that the NRC results exclude dose rate surcharges for
consistency with the analytical results.

RPV cylinder Lower core barrel

material Analytical approach NRC results Analytical approach NRC Results
[26] [26]
Waste vol charge ($) $0.38 million $3.2 million
Curie inventory charge ($) $ 7.67 $7.04 million
$3.7 million
million
special handling costs ($) $1.4 million $ 2.85 $2.64 million $2.4 million
million
Total ($) $5.5 million $10.9 $12. 9 million $12.64
million million

34
The lower core barrel’s costs in Table 2-10 are similar to those of the NRC burial costs
(see appendix) because the total activity levels far exceed the cost cap by the disposal
facility. RPV cylinder disposal costs differ drastically from the literature because the
activity computed is 48% of that which is listed in the literature. The specific activity of
Ni-59 was calculated to 2.97E-03 Ci/m3 vs 1.9E-02 Ci/m3 (reported in the literature) [14].
This therefore implies the curie charges are the primary cost driver.

2.3 MSR Analytical Radioactivity Estimation

In the case of Terrestrial Power or FLIBE Energy, specific activities for the vessel are
volumetric averages over the entire vessel. The flux of the internals was computed from
reactor core dimensions and knowledge of the fuel composition. Detailed computations are
shown in equations 12-14. The vessel wall flux is scaled down according to the ratio of the
PWR vessel wall to core barrel flux. The results of these approximations are shown in
Table 2-11. The validity of this assumption will be revisited in Chapter 4.

Table 2-11: Material properties and neutron flux experienced by the vessel wall and its internals
(Internals were assumed to have similar mass as the exterior RPV as a approximation).

Terrestrial [19] FLIBE [18]

RPV Mass (kg) 24,593 34,342
RPV Alloy Hastelloy N SS316 Hastelloy N SS316
3
Volume [(𝑚𝑚 ) 2.9 4.05
𝑛𝑛
Vessel wall Thermal flux [ ] 2.70E+12 3.34E+12
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝑠𝑠

Internals Mass [kg] 24,593 34,342

𝑛𝑛
Internals Thermal flux [ ] 9.67E+14 1.20E+15
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝑠𝑠

For the analysis of a SS316 vessel, nuclides with half-life less than 5 years are assumed to
make up 60% of the specific activity. This is informed by the reference PWR core barrel
activity computations where the material was SS304 and it subsequently had 60% of its
activity result from these very short-lived nuclides [14]. The slightly higher nickel content

35
 of SS316 means the contribution of very short-lived nuclides to activity may be lower than
60%, however there is no clear empirical relationship between activity and nickel content
from which to infer an appropriate short-lived nuclide activity level relative to that of
longer-lived nuclides without performing detail analysis.

Hastelloy N has more than five times more nickel content by weight percentage as SS316.
This presents difficulties with estimating the short-lived nuclide activity contribution to the
overall activity. Consideration of the activity contributions of all nuclides in stainless steel
and low-alloy steel relative to the nickel content suggests that long-lived nuclides will
contribute significantly more to the overall activity than short-lived nuclides. Therefore, it
is assumed that nuclides with a half-life greater than five year contribute to 90% of the
overall activity for Hastelloy N vessel. It is possible that the dominance of longer-lived
nuclide activity is higher than this but it is unlikely to be lower than 80%. These
assumptions will be verified by the CINDER calculations in Chapter 4. The presence of
Co-60 impurities as assumed in the analysis suggests it could contribute significantly to
activity alongside Ni-59 and Ni-63.

Table 2-12: Variable constants for computing radioactivity in the MSR vessel.

nuclide molar isotope wt% of the wt% of the Avagadro’s activation half-life decay
mass abundance base base num xs [cm2] (yr) [30] constant
(kg/mol) [30] element in element in [29] (yr-1)
the RPV the RPV
(Hastelloy (SS316)
N) [31] [32]
C-14 0.014 0.03% 0.00% 0.06% 6.02E+23 1.50E-27 5.70E+03 1.22E-04

Ni-59 0.059 5% 67.39% 12.25% 6.02E+23 3.99E-24 8.10E+04 8.56E-06

Co-60 0.06 100% 1 1.38% 0.25% 6.02E+23 3.30E-23 5.27E+00 1.31E-01

Ni-63 0.063 1.50% 67.39% 12.25% 6.02E+23 1.26E-23 1.01E+02 6.85E-03

Table 2-13 to 2-16 summarizes the results of the calculations given the aforementioned
assumptions.

1
Assumes all Co-59 is transmuted to Co-60, hence the 100% isotopic abundance.

36
The results in Table 2-13 to 2-16, can be compared with the thresholds outlined for the
radioactive waste by the NRC (Appendix). The specific activity increases with the length
of the irradiation period. Hastelloy N based RPVs are greater than class C waste due to
𝐴𝐴𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁−63 is greater than7,000 Ci/m3. SS316 vessel for a five-year irradiation period the
activity of Ni-63 is within class C limits which makes the vessel class C overall.

Table 2-13: Specific activities for RPVs composed of Hastelloy N for irradiation and decay
periods often years and one month respectively.

Nuclide Terrestrial RPV (Ci/m3) FLIBE RPV (Ci/m3)

Ni-59 7.26E+01 8.99E+01
Co-60 2.04E+06 2.53E+06
Ni-63 4.97E+04 6.16E+04
less than 5-year half-life 2.09E+05 2.59E+05
Classification >CLASS C

Table 2-14: Specific activities for RPVs composed of SS316 for irradiation and decay periods of
ten years and one month respectively.

Nuclide Terrestrial RPV (Ci/m3) FLIBE RPV (Ci/m3)

C-14 5.81E-06 7.20E-06
Ni-59 1.51E+01 1.87E+01
Co-60 8.87E-02 1.10E-01
Ni-63 1.03E+04 1.28E+04
less than 5-year half-life 1.55E+04 1.92E+04
Classification >CLASS C

Table 2-15: Specific activities for RPVs composed of Hastelloy N for irradiation and decay
periods of five years and one month respectively.

Nuclide Terrestrial RPV (Ci/m3) FLIBE RPV (Ci/m3)

Ni-59 3.63E+01 4.49E+01
Co-60 1.34E+06 1.66E+06
Ni-63 2.53E+04 3.13E+04
less than 5-year half-life 1.37E+05 1.70E+05
Classification >CLASS C

37
Table 2-16: Specific activities for RPVs composed of SS316 for irradiation and decay periods of
five years and one month respectively.

Nuclide Terrestrial RPV (Ci/m3) FLIBE RPV (Ci/m3)

C-14 4.36E-06 5.40E-06
Ni-59 6.60E+00 8.17E+00
Co-60 2.43E+05 3.02E+05
Ni-63 4.60E+03 5.69E+03
less than 5-year half-life 3.72E+05 4.61E+05
Classification CLASS C

Specific activities for the reactor internals were computed assuming a reactor operating
with lifetime of 10 years. Flux levels in this region are significantly higher than that which
is experienced by the vessel wall. The flux level is computed using the approximation
outlined by equation 12 with some assumptions about the enrichment of the fuel in the
system.
𝑃𝑃
Φ = 𝑁𝑁 (12)
𝑓𝑓 𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐

𝜔𝜔𝑈𝑈235 𝑁𝑁𝐴𝐴 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 𝑀𝑀𝑈𝑈

𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 = (13)
𝑀𝑀𝑈𝑈235 𝑀𝑀𝑓𝑓
𝜔𝜔 𝜔𝜔
𝑀𝑀𝑈𝑈 = (𝑀𝑀𝑈𝑈235 + 𝑀𝑀𝑈𝑈238 )−1 (14)
𝑈𝑈235 𝑈𝑈238

Where
𝑛𝑛
Φ: Thermal flux [ 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝑠𝑠]
𝑃𝑃: Power [W]
𝑛𝑛
𝑁𝑁𝑓𝑓 : Fuel number density [𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐3 ]
𝜔𝜔: Fuel enrichment of U-235 (10% assumed for this study)
𝜎𝜎𝑓𝑓 : U-235 fission cross section (585 barns) where 1b = 10−24 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 : Volume of the core [𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐3 ]
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘
𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 : 6700 [ 𝑚𝑚3 ] for 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈4

The assumed fuel for both systems is uranium tetrafluoride (𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈4 ) although only Terrestrial
Power specifically sites intent to use 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈4 [19]. FLIBE Energy intends to use a uranium-
based fuel as a startup fuel with a thorium blanket for breeding U-233 [18]. This startup
fuel is likely composed of enriched U-235 thereby justifying the assumption of 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈4 as the
fuel for the Flibe concept. Due to lack of detail from the reactor designers, internals are

38
assumed to have a maximum volume equivalent to the internal volume of the vessel: 2.9𝑚𝑚3
for Terrestrial Power and approximately 4.05𝑚𝑚3 for Flibe. The flux computed for either
design is assumed to be that experienced by the vessel internals as shown in Table 2-11.

Given the flux and mass of the internals, the specific activities can be computed similarly
to those of the RPV calculations. The results of these computation are shown in Table 2-17
and 2-18. Most notable in both tables, is the very high specific activity of nickel isotopes
and nuclides with half-life less than five years. According to the NRC 10-CFR regulatory
limits in the appendix [27], the internals are greater than class C waste and thus not suitable
for LLW waste disposal. Vessel internals would exceed class C waste specifications within
one year of operation.

Table 2-17: Specific activities for RPV internals composed of Hastelloy N for irradiation and
decay periods of ten years and one month respectively.

Nuclide Terrestrial internals (Ci/m3) FLIBE internals (Ci/m3)

Ni-59 2.60E+04 3.22E+04
Co-60 7.31E+08 9.06E+08
Ni-63 1.78E+07 2.21E+07
less than 5 yr half-life 7.49E+07 9.28E+07
Classification >CLASS C

Table 2-18: Specific activities for RPV internals composed of SS316 for irradiation and decay
periods of ten years and one month respectively.

Nuclide Terrestrial internals (Ci/m3) FLIBE internals (Ci/m3)

C-14 3.12E-03 3.87E-03
Ni-59 4.73E+03 5.86E+03
Co-60 1.32E+08 1.64E+08
Ni-63 3.24E+06 4.01E+06
less than 5 yr half-life 2.04E+08 2.52E+08
Classification >CLASS C

MSR activity for the vessel ranged between 104 Ci/m3 and 106 Ci/m3, which is two to four
orders of magnitude larger than the PWR vessel’s overall activity. Internals had activity
that was three orders of magnitude larger than the PWR core barrel’s activity. The higher

39
activation levels in MSR point to a need to analyze advanced reactor waste for suitability
in LLW storage facilities. The input assumptions presented for the MSR will be revisited
in Chapter 4.

2.3.1 RPV and Internals Disposal Costs

The analytical methodology outlined in Section 2.2 is used to compute PWR activity and
disposal costs. A billable limit of 100,000 curies of activity is imposed on the reactor vessel
and its internals. This is informed by the observation of a similar limit for PWR disposal
at the Texas LLW disposal facility. An adjustment factor of 10-20 times the disposal cost
is applied to account for the fact that MSR internals were classed as greater than or equal
to B/C level waste and other cleanup costs, which are inherent to MSRs as demonstrated
by the Oakridge MSR Experiment (MSRE). As in MSRE, all materials that have been
exposed to Molten Fuel that contains the byproducts of fission reaction require cleaning
and disposal of the cleaned fueled salt waste as high level waste. MIT Irradiation Materials
expert, Dr. Lance Snead estimates the cleanup costs for the MSRE have exceeded $250
million. The MSRE is effectively in safe storage mode, which requires continuous
maintenance until activity levels have dropped to acceptable levels that make full
decommissioning radioactively safe. Figure 2-1 displays a breakdown of the costs
associated with the disposal of the MSR pressure vessel that has operated for 10 years.

40
 0%

27%

73%

Waste vol charge ($) Curie inventory charge ($)

special handling costs ($)

Figure 2-1: Disposal cost drivers for an MSR design after 10 years of operation.

The curie inventory charge constitutes the largest portion of the disposal costs, followed
by the cost of handling the waste. Waste volume charges are negligible. Hastelloy N
ultimately experiences higher activation levels than the SS316 under identical irradiation
conditions. The higher nickel content in Hastelloy N versus SS316 is the main driver of the
difference in disposal cost of the alloys. Ni-59 has a 76,000-year half-life which means the
waste produced will have elevated levels of radioactivity for longer periods than other
nuclides. The core shroud of the reference PWR has the highest single component activity
limit of 33,500 curies [14]. This limit is applied to the MSR vessel when computing the
disposal costs. Special handling costs are proportional to the curie charge, which
effectively limits that cost item. From equations 1-3 and the vessel volume, the total
activity in the MSR vessel is computed to be 4.37-7.55 million curies for Hastelloy N and
1.8-3.11 million curies for SS316 over a 10-year irradiation period. The ranges represent
the effect of the vessel volume on the total activity. Terrestrial has a smaller vessel than
FLIBE Energy but the estimated thermal flux levels are on a similar order of magnitude.
Activity levels for both designs and associated materials is higher than the limit, therefore
the limit is imposed when computing the costs for LLW disposal. Table 2-19 summarizes
the total cost of disposal for the MSR pressure vessel and its internals over different
operating lifetimes.

41
 Table 2-19: Summary of the total disposal cost for an MSR vessel over different lifetime
periods.

Lifetime (yrs) FLIBE Terrestrial

SS316 Hastelloy N SS316 Hastelloy N
Vessel
$18.4-18.8 million $18.4-18.7 million
5-10
Internals without 20x multiplier
$56.4 million $56 million
Internals with 20x multiplier
$1.13 billion $1.12 billion

Reactor internals activity billing is capped at 100,000 curies for the curie inventory charges.
Under this premise, the total costs of disposal for the internals is $56 million. A 20x
multiple is applied for the cost of disposing greater than class C waste for which there is
no permanent solution at this stage in the United States. The true activity of the reactor
internals with a ten-year lifetime operation is 108 to 109 curies with SS316 exhibiting
lower activity than Hastelloy N internals. The cost of disposal for the MSR reactor and
internals is effectively the same for the 5 to 10-year operational horizon because the
cumulative activity meets or exceeds the limits of 33,500 and 100,000 curies for the vessel
and internals respectively within 1-2 years. De-rating the reactor to operate at PWR thermal
flux levels would enable the vessel to operate for over 40 years without ever exceeding the
Class C threshold for long-lived nuclides, mainly Ni-59. The internals would exceed class
C waste at 7-8 years for Hastelloy N based internals and well over 20 years for SS316
internals. It is worth emphasizing that the MSR internals have other materials such as
graphite, which are a significant consideration in disposal costs for reactor internals. C-14
generation in graphite and its disposal costs will be explored in Chapter 4.

In summary, activity increases with longer irradiation time but the cost of disposal plateaus
beyond a certain activity level, thereby making a longer operational lifecycle per
component a favorable economic outcome. Plant lifetime depends on the structural
integrity of the vessel and its internals. The internals are exposed to a much higher flux
which can add to the material degradation already imposed by the corrosive molten fluoride

42
salts. Thus, the expected operational lifetime of the internals could be lower than that of
the actual vessel.

2.3.2 Sensitivity Analysis on Power uprate Impact

Given the substantially higher activity for MSR components, sensitivity of increasing the
reference MSR reactor power on realized activity is explored. Power uprate can be realized
through increasing the molten fuel mass flow rate and/or core outlet temperature (core inlet
temperature is limited by the melting point of the salt). In the instance where power uprate
is achieved by increasing flowrates, the maximum lifetime of the RPV and internals will
not be significantly affected. However, pumping power requirements will be increased.
Evaluating the pumping power required to circulate fluoride salt in the primary loop is of
concern to assess the impact of increasing temperatures or flow rates can have on the
operational life of the reactor. Terrestrial Energy’s reactor is a fluoride salt cooled and
graphite moderated 400MWth system. The analysis assumes two types of fluoride molten
salts (FLiBe and FLiNaK) to evaluate the pumping power requirements based off the
estimated pressure drops across the core and the rest of the primary loop. The assumed
structure of the core interior is guided by the MSRE design [33]. Initial work required
establishing the mass flow rate in the core/primary using equation 18 where ∆𝑇𝑇 is the
temperature difference between the inlet and outlet temperatures, 𝑄𝑄̇ is the reactor thermal
power, and 𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 is the specific heat capacity of each salt.
𝑄𝑄̇ = 𝑚𝑚̇𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 ∆𝑇𝑇 (18)
𝐽𝐽
2369.8 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 = � 𝐽𝐽 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 [34] (19)
1620.4 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘

Next, the core cross sectional area was computed with 𝐷𝐷𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 = 3.5m as shown in equation
20 [19].
𝜋𝜋
𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 = 4
𝐷𝐷𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 2 (20)

43
The cross-sectional flow area of the reactor is proportional to the vessel area by a factor 𝜔𝜔
and is assumed equal to the flow to vessel area ratio for the MSRE. The solution to 𝜔𝜔 is
included in Appendix E.
𝐴𝐴
𝜔𝜔 = (𝐴𝐴 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 )𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 0.192 (21)
𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣

𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 𝜔𝜔𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 (22)

𝑚𝑚̇
𝐺𝐺 = 𝐴𝐴 (23)
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓

Key fluid properties like viscosity and density of each salt vary with temperature and are
expressed in equations 24, 25 and 29. Reynold’s number (Re) is computed in equation 27
to determine the correct friction factor (f) to be used based on the flow regime in the core.
Finally, the pressure drops across the core due to gravity (∆𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 ), friction (∆𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 ) and
acceleration (∆𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 ) are calculated individually to provide input for the total core pressure
drop in equation 33.
4170

𝜇𝜇𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = (4 × 10−5 ) 𝑒𝑒 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏,𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 +273 [34] (24)

3755
−5 ) 𝑇𝑇𝑏𝑏,𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 +273
𝜇𝜇𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 = (1.16 × 10 𝑒𝑒 [34] (25)
𝐴𝐴𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 = � (26)
4𝜋𝜋

𝐺𝐺𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = (27)
𝜇𝜇

0.184𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 −0.2 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅>3500

𝑓𝑓 = � 64
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅<2100
(28)
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
2241.66 − 0.42938𝑇𝑇 °𝐶𝐶 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
𝜌𝜌 = � [35] (29)
2485.8 − 0.69451𝑇𝑇 °𝐶𝐶 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹
1 1
∆𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 = 𝐺𝐺 2 (𝜌𝜌 − 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖
) (30)
𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜

∆𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 = 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑔𝑔𝐻𝐻𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (31)

𝑓𝑓𝐺𝐺 2 𝐻𝐻𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
∆𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = (32)
2𝐷𝐷𝑒𝑒 𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎

∆𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = ∆𝑃𝑃𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 + ∆𝑃𝑃𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 + ∆𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 (33)

The pressure drop across the entire primary is approximately twice that of the core. The
fluoride salt experiences additional pressure losses along the piping network and other
components in the loop.

44
 ∆𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ≈ 2∆𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 (34)
𝑚𝑚̇∆𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ≈ (35)
𝜌𝜌𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎

Pumping power required to circulate the FLiBe salt is 181kWe and 274kW for FLiNaK.
Under the assumption of Terrestrial’s reported cycle efficiency of 48% [19], the pumping
power is approximately 0.1% of the electric output. Increasing coolant flowrate by up to
50% would result in pumping power requirements increasing by 48% for FLiBe and 64%
for FLiNaK. This however would still maintain the ratio of pumping power below 0.1%.

Another approach for power up rate would require an increase in the outlet temperatures
in the core. This would result in an increase corrosion rates of structural material in the
vessel. A 50% increase in power results in increase of core outlet temperature from 700 to
737.5 oC. Corrosion rates of Hastelloy N and stainless steels increase 100% for every 50
o
C temperature increase [36]. Both materials have appreciable quantities of chromium,
which can diffuse to the metal’s surface and oxidize. The lifetime of the vessel and its
internals highly depends on their structural integrity and the corrosion rate of the base alloy.
Hastelloy N exhibits greater corrosion resistance (roughly by a factor of 2x) than SS316,
which corrodes at a rate of 17-31𝜇𝜇𝜇𝜇 per year [37]. At such corrosion rates many MSR
vendors including FLIBE and Terrestrial limit the lifetime of core internals to 5-10 years
(e.g., 7 years for Terrestrial). The consideration of lifetime is also driven by graphite
replacement. A recent study estimated graphite lifecylce cost of ~$3,000/kg (including
disposal cost) for replacement every 5 years [38]. For Terrestrial, this would mean disposal
of 70 tons of graphite every 5 years or $210 Million. Terrestrial does plan to store the core
units onsite for the lifetime of the plant [39]. Temperature increases creep resistance and
motivates use of super alloys that typically translate to more activation. This is one reason
why materials such as SiC are so attractive for advanced reactor application due to its low
activation, small thermal creep and high corrosion resistant to salts.

Finally, a 50% power uprate would make a SS316 RPV class C waste within 11-12 years
of operation for Terrestrial Energy’s design. Ni-59 would cross the 22 Ci/m3 threshold
specific activity which would classify the component as class C waste. This therefore

45
potentially reduces the overall plant life significantly but does not meaningfully add to the
cost of disposal due to the already high total activity for the base case.

2.4 MSR Specific Costs

The MSR pressure vessel production costs were presented earlier in the paper and are well
documented in the literature. However, disposal costs are less readily available. The scope
of disposal costs considered in this study is not representative of all the costs which could
be expected, but the analysis does address majority of the cost items rated by the Texas
LLW disposal site as a reference case. Table 2-20 summarizes the costs of the RPV for
each design and its constitutive material of choice. Finally, a fixed cost per unit power is
shown to provide an idea of which combination of design and material is most cost
effective to dispose of following the end of a reactor’s licensed operating lifetime. The
operational period considered is 10 years.

Table 2-20: MSR total costs summarized according to waste classification of the vessel.

FLIBE Terrestrial
SS316 [32] Hastelloy N SS316 Hastelloy N
[31]
RPV and Internal overnight cost ($) $21.3 $29.5 million $15.2 $21.1
million million million
RPV disposal costs ($)
$18.8 million $18.7million
Internals disposal without 20x inflator
($) $56.4 million $56 million
Internals disposal with 20x inflator ($)
$1.13 billion $1.12 billion
Total disposal cost ($)
$1.15billion $1.14billion
Disposal cost ($/kWe)
$226-4,700 $282-5,800

At $1/MWhre disposal fee, neglecting interest, translates to $1.2 million/yr for the MSR
options 1. Over a 10-year period, this would only raise up to $20 million assuming a 5%
annual discount rate. Clearly, the estimated cost for the disposal of the vessel alone will
require an increase in the disposal fee. Assuming a 200MWe output at 70% capacity factor,

1
Assumes 200MWe output at 70% capacity factor

46
and a 10-year operating lifetime, immediate disposal would require a levelized cost of
disposal of $134/MWhre. In comparison to a PWR, as noted in 2021 NRC report on burial
costs [26], disposal cost of PWR vessel plus all internals is about $60M ($50/kW) for the
same assumed facility as the MSRs. The cost of disposal of a SS component of the PWR
such as the lower core barrel (SS304) is on the order of $0.3 million /MT. This is
significantly lower than the SS316 vessel disposal cost in MSRs since the estimated flux
levels in MSRs and nickel content in SS316 are higher. If the same flux as a PWR is
realized in the MSRs above, then the costs would be ~10 times lower and closer to an upper
limit of $500/kWe. Therefore, quantifying the specific impact of reactor spectrum and flux
levels is an important part of future work for accurate assessment of disposal cost. At
greater than 20x lower values, the $1/MWhre is near sufficient to cover the SS316 vessel
disposal when accounting for interest. It should be noted that disposal of all contaminated
materials for a PWR are estimated to be on the order of $100M over its lifetime based on
the last waste burial data from the NRC [26]. A fueled MSR reactor should have orders of
magnitude more contamination and the RPV disposal cost will likely not account for
majority of disposal cost needs as supported by the noted MSRE experience.

The conclusions in this section were derived through analytical calculations with several
assumptions. This crude scaling approach is typically used by non-specialized nuclear
expert in the field in estimating nuclear waste activity. Chapter 3 and 4 discusses a more
robust and detailed numerical approach to estimate disposal cost of PWR and MSR
designs. Chapter 6 compares the results of the analytical approach to the numerical
approach.

47
3. MCNPX PWR MODEL

3.1 MCNPX and CINDER90 overview

Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport eXtended (MCNPX) is a code base which applies
Monte-Carlo techniques to simulate large particle quantities at varying energies to enhance
understanding of radiation transport phenomena [40]. It has a variety of applications,
including but not limited to, reactor design, subcritical systems, shielding design and
nuclear medicine (proton/neutron therapy), [41].

CINDER90 is an activation analysis code which can compute timestep sensitive metrics
for irradiated materials. The code has a built in 63 group cross-section library which can
conduct analysis on up to 3400 nuclides. For the code to work, it requires a multigroup
flux input for a specific component. At each timestep specified by the user, it will produce
results that display metrics such as specific activity (Ci/cm3), and atomic density (atoms/b-
cm), absorption and decay rates [42]. Running CINDER90 requires a working version of
MCNPX to generate an output file that serves as an input file for CINDER. For a more
detailed discussion on using CINDER, please refer to the manual. Although the focus of
its applications in this study were neutron activation analysis, CINDER90 also has the
capability to provide inputs for a gamma activation analysis. It does so by creating a spectra
file which can be read by a Perl based scripting code to generate a source definition card.
This SDEF card should be copied and pasted into an MCNPX input for the system being
analyzed to perform dose calculations [43].

The next sections will introduce the design process for the PWR concept based on available
information on the reference Trojan NPP and present the results of the activation analysis.

48
3.2 PWR design

For the purpose of this study’s objectives, the PWR is treated as a homogenous core reactor
concept. The reactor core region was homogenized such that the coolant, fuel, and cladding
are construed to be one material card in MCNPX. This took into consideration the various
mass ratios of fuel, coolant and cladding in the core. The core shroud, core barrel and RPV
were designed with consideration of their material compositions and a best estimate of
dimensions as simple cylindrical structures informed by available information on the
Trojan NPP. Figure 3-1 shows the radial and axial model of the Trojan NPP. The
dimensions displayed were directly applied in constructing the MCNPX model.

Figure 3-1: Radial and axial model of the Trojan NPP reactor [20]

49
The core fuel was assumed to have an average enrichment of 3%, 193 assemblies of 264
fuel rods per assembly. Boron concentration was set at 480ppm. Dimensions of assembly
pitch, cladding thickness, fuel pellet diameter etc. were taken from Appendix K of [44],
since Seabrook NPP is also a Westinghouse PWR design similar to Trojan. The relevant
metrics from these resources are summarized in Table 3-1 to 3-4.

Table 3-1: General reactor core specifications [45].

Assemblies 193
Fuel rods/assembly 264
Enrichment 3%
Active length (m) 3.658
Active Core diameter 3.37
Pellet diameter (m) 0.008192
Fuel rod diameter (m) 0.0095
Clad thickness (m) 0.000572
Gap thickness (m) 8.2E-05
Assembly pitch (m) 0.21
Assembly flow area (m2) 0.025387103

Table 3-2: Density [45].

95% theoretical UO2 density (g/cm3) 10.4215

3
Zr density (g/cm ) 6.5
He density (g/cm3) 0.001333
Water density (g/cm3) @ (15.5MPa and 310C) 0.705

Table 3-3: Masses of core composites.

UO2 mass in core (kg) 102377.5986

Mass of water in core at any time (kg) 12635.81557

Boron in water (kg) 6.065191472

Oxygen mass (kg) 12131.62487
Uranium mass (kg) 90245.97376
U235 mass (kg) 2707.379213
U238 mass (kg) 87538.59454
Zr mass (kg) 2939.278276
He mass (kg) 0.529558969

50
Table 3-4 is the homogenized core composition that is an input to MCNPX. The core shroud,
and core barrel are made from SS304 and the RPV, low carbon steel. Both of these materials are
specified in Chapter 2 and were included in the MCNPX input files all of which will be included
in Appendix A.

Table 3-4: Weight percent as input into MCNPX material card.

U235 0.022951811
U238 0.742108541
Zr 0.024917735
He 4.48934E-06
H (in water) 0.011902238
Oxygen (in water) 0.095217904
Oxygen (fuel) 0.102845865
B-10 5.14177E-05

Figure 3-2 shows a graphic of the PWR concept. The vessel head and bottom are also
outlined in green but have a smaller wall thickness than that of the cylindrical portion of
the vessel. Other areas of the vessel were homogenized regions in proportion to the ratios
suggested by Figure 3-1 in the axial zoning portion of the graphic. SS in this case refers to
SS304.

Vessel cylinder

Core barrel

Core shroud
Core

Figure 3-2: Cross section of full RPV plus internals for the PWR concept.

51
The flux was computed for a 44-energy group structure to accommodate benchmark
calculations using ORIGEN. CINDER is capable of re-binning the flux to accommodate
its 63-group structure. Design of the PWR was done in three main stages. First a k-code
calculation was conducted to compute k-eff and F4 tallies which would then be used to
compute a multiplier for flux tally 4 (FM4) and source variable probabilities for the SP3
card. The SP3 card would be used in defining a volumetric source that encompasses the
core region. The other two calculations involved running the volumetric source and Watt
spectrum source definition versions of the script. The Watt spectrum source definition is
activated by specifying the SP3 card to be “-3”. Table 3-5 present overall flux results of
the watt spectrum and volumetric source definition against the published flux values of the
reference PWR in the literature.

Table 3-5: Total flux results for the volumetric and watt spectrum sources.

Literature (n/cm2-s) [20] Volumetric Source Watt Spectrum source (n/cm2-s)

(n/cm2-s)
Core shroud 5.56E+13 1.76E+13 ± 0.13% 2.94E+13 ± 0.1%
Core barrel 3.16E+12 2.83E+11 ± 0.63% 7.73E+11 ± 0.39%
Vessel Cylinder 3.71E+10 3.26E+09 ± 4.6% 7.86E+09 ± 2.89%

Watt spectrum tends to overestimate the flux relative to a probability specified source
definition. Both models resulted in a lower flux than that reported by [20]. A footnote in
the report does explain that the reported flux is averaged over the length of the fuel in the
core and the radial thickness of each component [20]. Therefore, since the flux in the
current analysis is averaged over the volume of each component, such a discrepancy is
justified. The rest of the analysis is carried forward with sole consideration of the
volumetric source flux.

The overall flux does not describe the distribution of flux axially and radially in the vessel.
FMESH tally supports this function for a variety of geometries. MCNPX does not have a
FMESH card; thus, MCNP5 was used to compute the flux distribution throughout the
vessel. Not that the axial direction is the z-direction while the radial axis is self-explanatory.
Figure 3-3 show radial distribution of the flux at different axial positions. These results are
for one azimuthal bin.

52
From Figure 3-3, it is clear that homogenization maintains a consistent flux across the core
region, with the peak towards the radial center of the core as expected. The average flux at

the midplane is 2.24E+14 n/cm2 -s while the core average flux is 9.18E+13 n/cm²-s. This
suggests a peak to average flux ratio of 2.44. This ratio is above 2 for the homogenized
core since unlike the real PWR, the same fuel composition is modeled everywhere in the
core.

Figure 3-3: Radial variation of flux at different axial positions in the RPV. z= 319.38cm, is the
bottom region of the core (ΔF=±2.37%), z=532.29cm is close to the core midplane
(ΔF=±1.13%), z=702.62cm is the core top region (ΔF=±1.37%). Note: y-axis has been
individually scaled.

53
Figure 3-4 shows the axial variation of the flux in the RPV. The flux is elevated and
relatively flat in the fuel active region, 350<z<750 cm. The next section presents analysis
of the activation in the core shroud, core barrel and vessel cylinder.

Figure 3-4: Average flux axially varying across the height of the RPV (ΔF=±10%).

3.2 Activation analysis

Activation analysis was conducted primarily using CINDER. ORIGEN calculations were
also performed to compare with the primarily analysis tool and are included in Appendix
D. The analysis focused on the activity in the core shroud, barrel, and vessel cylinder. Six
effective full power timesteps were considered up to 40 years, and 9 decay timesteps up to
10 years post shutdown.

CINDER requires an MCNPX output file to run. The CINDER code package comes with
an activation and gamma script which can be used for neutron activation analysis and dose
calculations respectively. The activation script calls a bigza file, CINDER, and MCNPX
output file. Bigza is a file which contains information about the isotopic abundance of all
nuclides [45]. The program will follow the path of the file. In this case, the input would

54
specify the PWR output, and bigza file. Calling CINDER is not required as the script’s
default activation code base is CINDER; although it is compatible with SP-FISPACT, and
ORIHET3. Non-CINDER code bases would have to be specifically called.

3.2.1 Results

The results of the activation analysis for the shroud, barrel and vessel cylinder are presented
in this section. The data is extracted from the alltabs file of each component’s results folder
for post-processing by a python script. Key results to be presented are the specific activities
of nuclides in the NRC’s 10 CFR, section 61.55 as shown in Appendix B, and total activity
of the component over time.

Core Shroud

The core shroud is located at the edge of the core, and thus experiences elevated levels of
radiation as a result of this proximity. Figure 3-5 to 3-7 summarize the evolution of specific
activity for specific nuclides and the component overall. Comparing Figure 3-5, 3-6 and
3.7, it is clear that the activity in the shroud saturates relatively early on in reactor
operations. A similar trend is visible in Figure 3-6. Moreover, the activity is driven by
nuclides with a half-life shorter than five years. In particular by Cr-51, Mn-56, Fe-55 which
collectively contribute to 86.3% of the overall activity of this group of nuclides at 30 years
of operation. This is higher than the 60% activity contribution assumed in Chapter 2 for
SS304. This very short-lived nuclide grouping constitutes 75.2% of the overall activity at
permanent shutdown (40 years of operation). Long-lived nuclides C-14 and Ni-59 each
have a half-life of 5,730 years and 76,000 years respectively thus making them the ultimate
limiting nuclide group in determining the classification of shroud over nuclides like Co-60
(half-life 5.27 years). Due to the dominance of short-lived nuclides in the overall activity,
their decay results in noticeable drops in activity for specific nuclides shown in Figure 3-6,
and this manifests in the overall component activity as shown in Figure 3-7. Cobalt is
included as an impurity in the original composition of SS304 in the MCNPX model.
Despite its relatively minor 0.15 wt%, it contributes considerably to the overall activity of
the component. R.I. Smith et al. [20] note cobalt and niobium to be an impurity substance

55
in stainless and carbon steels, for which they apply minimum and maximum wt% to show
sensitivity. Nb-93 was allocated a maximum wt% of 0.016 in SS304 by the researchers.
For the purpose of this study, the maximum impurity threshold was applied to project the
worst-case scenario for activation levels

Figure 3-5: Specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10 CFR, section
61.55.

Figure 3-6: Specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10 CFR, section
61.55.

56
 Figure 3-7: Specific activity for the shroud overall.

To make a comparison with the PNNL reference study, Table 3-6 summarizes the
specific activity of nuclides of interest to determine waste classification. Any long-lived
nuclides as defined by the NRC’s regulations on LLW will be the primary limiting
criteria for waste classification, followed by consideration of short-lived nuclides. For
immediate disposal after shutdown, based on the specific activity of C-14, Ni-59 and Nb-
94, the core shroud is greater than class C waste and is thus not suitable for near surface
disposal. Pursuing safe storage for up to 10 years to allow activated products to decay
would result in a 94.4% decrease in overall activity levels. This would have significant
impact on disposal costs given the influence of activity on costs, as seen in Chapter 2.
Overall, the waste classification would still remain greater than class C due to the
elevated specific activity of C-14 and Ni-59.

57
Table 3-6: Core shroud specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL 30 MCNPX results 30 MCNPX MCNPX

years of years of irradiation results 40 results for 10-
irradiation (Ci/m3) years of year decay
(Ci/m3) irradiation after a 40-yr
(Ci/m3) operating
period (Ci/m3)
C-14 8.18E+01 1.09E+02 1.09E+02
Ni-59 6.0E+02 2.85E+02 3.66E+02 3.66E+02
Nb-94 4.3E+00 1.96E+00 2.57E+00 2.57E+00
Tc-99 1.06E-01 1.37E-01 1.37E-01
H-3 1.66E+01 2.22E+01 1.27E+01
Co-60 7.7E+05 3.13E+05 3.09E+05 8.28E+04
Ni-63 9.7E+04 3.39E+04 4.33E+04 4.04E+04
Sr-90 5.06E-08 8.37E-08 6.58E-08
total of nuclides with <5yr 1.3E+06 2.40E+06 2.39E+06 2.85E+04
half-life
Shroud classification >CLASS C

Core Barrel

The core barrel is exposed to significant levels of radiation and thus warrants investigation
for the impacts of this prolonged flux exposure on activation. SS304 is the base material,
like most internal components. Figure 3-8 to 3-10 demonstrates the evolution of activity
for nuclides of interest and the component.

Figure 3-8: : Barrel specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10 CFR,
section 61.55.

58
As with the shroud, long-lived nuclides are not yet saturated at 40 years of full power
operation. Their specific activity remains unaltered 10 years post shutdown due to their
long half-lives. Nuclides with a half-life shorter than five years constitute majority of the
activity, with Co-60 also contributing substantially. A decay period of 10 years would
reduce overall activity by 94.7%.

Figure 3-9: Barrel specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10 CFR,
section 61.55.

Figure 3-10: Barrel overall specific activity.

To classify the waste from Table 3-7 data, this requires long-lived nuclide activity
analysis relative to limits imposed by regulations. The sum of ratio of the activity of C-

59
14, Ni-59, Nb-94, and Tc-99 to their class C limits is 0.185, which makes the waste class
C (short-lived nuclides also remain within their class C). The waste remains class C ten
years after permanent shutdown (40 years of operation). Co-60 and nuclides with half-
life less than five years are well above their class A threshold of 700 Ci/m3 each. Since
they do not have an upper limit for class B or C waste, the classification has to be
determined by the specific activity of Ni-63 and Sr-90 which is within class C limits after
40 years of irradiation. Ten years post shutdown, long-lived nuclide activity levels
remain elevated thus leaving the waste classification unchanged. Notably, the activity of
the MCNPX model reactor is one order of magnitude lower for Ni-59, Co-60 and Ni-63.
This is possibly due to the flux that is modelled by MCNPX being an order of magnitude
lower than that published in the PNNL study (include in Appendix B).

Table 3-7: Core Barrel specific activity after 30 to 40-year of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL 30 years MCNPX results MCNPX results MCNPX results for

of irradiation 30 years of 40 years of 10-year decay after a
(Ci/m3) irradiation irradiation 40-yr operating period
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3)
C-14 1.64E+00 2.19E+00 2.19E+00
Ni-59 4.10 E+01 6.28E+00 8.37E+00 8.37E+00
Nb-94 2.45 E-01 2.71E-02 3.61E-02 3.61E-02
Tc-99 1.36E-03 1.81E-03 1.81E-03
H-3 5.60E-01 6.35E-01 3.62E-01
Co-60 4.49 E+04 5.38E+03 5.45E+03 1.46E+03
Ni-63 5.51 E+03 6.97E+02 8.99E+02 8.39E+02
Sr-90 1.25E-10 2.07E-10 1.63E-10
total of nuclides 7.25E+04 4.79E+04 4.79E+04 5.88E+02
with <5yr half-
life
Barrel >CLASS C CLASS C
Classification

60
Vessel Cylinder

The focus of this analysis is on the cylindrical portion of the vessel because the MCNPX
analysis showed, it has significantly larger exposure to radiation than the vessel head and
bottom. SA508 was the material used for the RPV generally. Figure 3-11 to 3-13
summarize the activity analysis results. C-14, Ni-59, Nb-94, Tc-99, and Sr 90 are all
nuclides of interest which are created during the irradiation of the vessel cylinder. Tc-99 is
the third most prominent long-lived nuclide for contribution to activation after C-14 and
Ni-59. Tc-99 is a daughter nuclide of Mo-99 via beta decay. Mo-93 decays into Nb-93
which can transmute by neutron capture into Nb-94.

Figure 3-11: Vessel cylinder specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10
CFR, section 61.55.

Very short-lived nuclides (half-life less than 5 years) constitute 98.9% of the specific
activity of the vessel cylinder at shutdown (Figure 3-12). In comparison Chapter 2 assumed
90% of the overall activity was very short-lived nuclides. The overall activity is 152.1
Ci/m3 at 40 years of full power, and it drops to 3.4 Ci/m3 after a 10-year decay period
(Figure 3-13). The complete comparison with the PNNL study is summarized in Table 3-8.

61
Figure 3-12: Vessel cylinder specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10
CFR, section 61.55.

Figure 3-13: Overall vessel cylinder specific activity.

Table 3-8 shows a generally lower activity level for the MCNPX PWR model after 30
years of irradiation compared to the benchmark results. The overall activity is three to four
times smaller than listed in the reference but reaches the same conclusion in terms of waste
classification. Similar to the other components, the lower flux modelled (Table 3-5)
explains the discrepancy in activity for the time horizon modelled. Since short-lived
nuclides dominate the overall activity levels, modelling the MCNPX reactor for 30-40
years of operation does not change the conclusion. This group of nuclides saturates early

62
on in the reactor’s lifetime. Thus, only long-lived nuclides would have differing values as
they are yet to reach saturation after 30 years.

Table 3-8: Vessel specific activity after 30 to 40-year of full power operation for MCNPX model
PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL 30 years MCNPX results MCNPX results MCNPX results for

of irradiation 30 years of 40 years of 10-year decay after a
(Ci/m3) irradiation irradiation 40-yr operating period
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3)
C-14 1.04E-03 1.39E-03 1.39E-03
Ni-59 1.9 E-02 8.93E-04 1.19E-03 1.19E-03
Nb-94 4.78E-06 6.37E-06 6.37E-06
Tc-99 1.34E-04 1.79E-04 1.79E-04
H-3 8.10E-03 8.89E-03 5.07E-03
Co-60 4.40 E+01 1.49E+00 1.51E+00 4.06E-01
Ni-63 2.2 E+00 9.81E-02 1.27E-01 1.18E-01
Sr-90 1.32E-13 2.19E-13 1.72E-13
total of nuclides 4.70E+02 1.50E+02 1.51E+02 2.89E+00
with <5yr half-life
MXNPX Vessel CLASS A
Waste
Classification

The discussion in this sub section has explained the activation analysis results for the core
shroud, barrel and the vessel cylinder. Commensurate with irradiation levels, the shroud
had the highest overall specific activity with the barrel and vessel cylinder displaying two
to four orders of magnitude lower activity levels after 30-40 years of irradiation. The next
section will describe the disposal costs resulting from the activation analysis.

3.3 Disposal Costs

Disposal costs are important to analyze as this allows for comparison with the PNNL
study’s methodology. The disposal costs are computed for the hypothetical situation where
the dismantle and disposal of waste will take place immediately after a 30 or 40-year
irradiation period, and a more realistic situation of a 10-year decay period prior to disposing
the waste.

63
Based on the methodology by PNNL (on behalf of the NRC) in computing burial charges,
this analysis applies billing limits to the activity of each component. As shown in Table
2-6 (Chapter 2), the dollar per curie charge applied is $400/Ci (2018). The latest numbers
show the charges to be $50/Ci, which is a drastic reduction to 12.5% of the 2018 costs.
While this is a welcomed cost reduction, the upper limit of $400/Ci is maintained with
reference to 2018 cost limits on activation charges because this upper bound would likely
cover all future cost projections for curie charges which are lower than $400/Ci.
The activity billing limits imposed on the core shroud, core barrel and vessel cylinder are
$13.4 million, $7.44 million (upper + lower core barrel), and $7.67 million, respectively
[26]. These limits are imposed to mimic the considerations of the PNNL researchers in
computing disposal costs. For example, the core shroud’s curie charges imply total activity
of 33,550 Ci [14]. This is less than 1% of the true total activity of the component.
Therefore, the PNNL researchers would impose such limits based on insights gained from
correspondence with Texas disposal facility owner/operators. A similar scenario applies to
the core barrel, where its activity billed is 2.84% of its 654,400 Ci total [14]. The vessel
cylinder’s curie billing accounted for all the 19,166 Ci of activity in the component [14].
At $400/Ci, this results in a curie charge of $7.67 million as presented in the NRC’s report.
All these data are assuming immediate dismantlement of the reactor post shutdown, after
30 years of effective full power operations. The 1984 report by E.S. Murphy [14], which
informs the inputs of the NRC report, considers safe storage decommissioning for 30, 50
and 100 years. Activity levels for these timesteps are considerably lower for class A and B
wastes like the vessel cylinder. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that the PNNL
researchers considered immediate dismantlement as their base case as this is the upper
bound on disposal costs given peak activity levels will be at permanent shutdown.

Another consideration in computing the disposal costs for the MCNPX PWR model was
the burial volume which is typically larger than the full density volume. Components such
as the pressure vessel need to be cut up into smaller pieces that fit into shielded casks which
are ultimately disposed at the relevant facility. R.I Smith et al [20], reported shielded casks
to have a burial volume of 2.84 m3, for use in low level waste burial land. The overall
burial volume of the vessel cylinder was 108 m3, from a full density volume of 37 m3.

64
Given the uncertainty of how much burial volume each MCNPX PWR component studied
would assume, the burial to full density volume ratio is used to scale the volume. The vessel
cylinder would therefore have a ratio of 2.92. Similarly, the ratios for the shroud and barrel
are 6.88 and 5, respectively.

Finally, the handling costs were capped as well. Generally, the handling costs are computed
as shown in equation 17 (Chapter 2), however this is only true for the vessel cylinder. Other
components were limited. The shroud is limited to $0.3 million as compared to the $5
million handling charge that would otherwise be charged in the report assuming strict
application of equation 17. Core barrel is limited to a $2.55 million handling charge. This
is in contrast to the $2.8 million handling charge that is computed by applying equation 17.
The activity charge limits can be turned off in the python tool when prompted by the
disposal cost code since they are the main cost driver. Burial volume ratios are fixed but
could be changed within the source code.

The total disposal costs for the core shroud after 40 years of irradiation was $14.15 million.
After a 10-year decay period, these costs remain unchanged despite a 94.4% drop in overall
activity levels. The activity levels at shutdown are very high, and remain above the billing
limit after 10 years of shutdown. The cost comparison with the Trojan NPP case is shown
in Figure 3-14.

Disposal costs for the reference case are $14.28 million [26]. The difference in disposal
costs is due to the waste volume and dose rate surcharges which are priced based on the
burial volume of the component. The full density volume of the reference shroud is 1.6 m3
[14], compared to 1.25 m3 for the MCNPX model. The design of the MCNPX PWR was
guided by available dimensions on the Trojan NPP, however unknown dimensions were
compensated for by best general estimates of the component’s missing dimension, e.g.
height.

65
 Figure 3-14: Core shroud disposal for 30 and 40-year operating lifetime cost comparison with
the reference case. 10-year SAFSTOR refers to a 10-year decay period before disposal of the
shroud assuming 40-year operating lifetime.

Core barrel disposal costs at shutdown were computed to be $13 million, with the
differences being the waste volume charges and the dose rate surcharges for reasons similar
to those of the core shroud. Reference design volume for the core barrel is 5.8 m3. MCNPX
PWR design volume is 3.64 m3. Disposal costs for the reference case were reported to be
$14.75 million [26]. After 10 years since permanent shutdown, the disposal costs for the
MCNPX model core barrel is $8.67 million. The drop is driven by the reduction in
activation levels. Interestingly, the activity drops by approximately 95% however this does
not result in a proportional drop in the radioactivity charges. This is due to the activity limit
on billed activity at shutdown which is 18,600 Ci, from the reference case. A decade after
shutdown barrel activity is below this limit and thus all that activity is assumed to be fully
billed.

66
Figure 3-15: Core barrel disposal for 30 and 40-year operating lifetime cost comparison with the
reference case. 10-year SAFSTOR refers to a 10-year decay period before disposal of the shroud
assuming 40-year operating lifetime.

Vessel cylinder disposal costs immediately post-shutdown are $3.6 million. Costs reduce
to $0.39 million after a 10-year decay period. Reference costs for the vessel cylinder are
reported at $12.42 million [26]. These costs are summarized in Figure 3-16.

Figure 3-16: Vessel Cylinder disposal cost comparison with the reference case.

Volume of the Trojan NPP vessel cylinder is 37 m3, and that of the MCNPX model is 26.8
m3. Like the other components analyzed, this is a large discrepancy which has profound
impacts on volume dependent metrics such as the waste volume and dose rate surcharges.

67
The flux modelled as reported in Table 3-5 is one order of magnitude smaller than the
PNNL study. This also contributes to the discrepancies witnessed in Figure 3-16. The
specific activity of the vessel cylinder as modelled by CINDER is 3-4x lower than that of
the reference case. This results in significantly smaller radioactivity and irradiated
hardware handling charges. R.I. Smith et al. [20], used core mid plane specific activities
for the lower 5.02m of the vessel wall. The mass of this portion of the vessel wall is 245.6
metric tons (MT). Assuming a 8.04 MT/ m3 density of the carbon steel results in a 30.6 m3
volume. Reference to Figure 3-1, shows the vessel cylinder has a 0.216 m thickness (outer
diameter: 2.413m; inner diameter: 2.197m). Using these radial dimensions, heights and
densities given in the literature suggest the volume of the lower 5.02m of the vessel wall
should be 15.7 m3 and its mass, 126 MT. The mass of this component in the literature is
1.94 times that which has just been computed. This exposes an inconsistency in the
volume/mass numbers of the vessel in the Trojan NPP decommissioning study. Chapter 5
will cover a sensitivity case where the thickness of the core shroud, barrel and vessel is
increased to match the mass/volume given reported in [14].

MCNPX model in this study suggests the volume of the core shroud, barrel, and vessel is
understated by 22-37%. This coupled with the effect of lower flux as listed in Table 3-5,
results in some noticeable differences in the disposal costs outcomes, particularly for class
A waste like the vessel cylinder.

Overall, the core shroud had the most similar disposal cost results relative to the NRC
reporting. The differences for the barrel were a modest 12%. However, the difference in
RPV costs were considerable, almost a factor of 3 difference. Chapter 5 will discuss some
sensitivity analysis on impurities such as cobalt and niobium. Furthermore, the flux and
thickness of components will be increased to match [20, 14] and compare activation results
to the benchmark results.

The next Chapter will explore the design and activation analysis of an MCNPX model
MSR inspired by the MSR Experiment at Oakridge National Laboratory and the conceptual
Terrestrial Energy design.

68
4. MCNPX MSR MODEL

4.1 MSR Design

The MSR design is primarily based on the Terrestrial Energy Integral Molten Salt Reactor
(IMSR) concept’s publicly available design specifications. Details of core (fuel
composition and graphite) content are derived from the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment
(MSRE) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge). Terrestrial’s IMSR builds on the
knowledge gained from the Oak Ridge MSRE program and is therefore likely to contain
similar materials and compositions. FLIBE Energy’s design was not explicitly modelled
because the activity and disposal costs for major components are similar.

The MSRE was established to demonstrate a proof of concept for liquid fueled reactors
which could result in fuel cycle costs savings [46]. It was a small core with a 137.2cm
diameter and 162.6cm height, resulting in a maximum power of 10MWth [46]. Graphite
blocks (of low permeability) were constructed to have holes that allow the fuel to flow in
the channels. Hastelloy N was the material of choice for any metallic components such as
the core can and pressure vessel. Terrestrial Energy anticipates using either SS316 or
Hastelloy N for its design [19]. The analysis that follows considers a case where each
material is used similar to Chapter 2. A summary of the MSRE’s materials compositions
is summarized below.

Table 4-1: MSRE reactor materials [47].

Fuel Salt 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 -𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐹𝐹2 - 𝑍𝑍𝑍𝑍𝐹𝐹4 - 𝑈𝑈𝐹𝐹4

65.0-29.1-5.0-0.9 mol%
Coolant Salt 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 -𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐹𝐹2
Moderator Graphite
Major steel components (vessels, metallic internals) Hastelloy N
Cover Gas Helium

Vessel dimensions for the MSRE were a wall thickness of 1.43-2.54cm, height of 234 cm
and an inner diameter of 147.3cm [47]. In comparison, the Terrestrial Energy reactor is
projected to have an inner diameter of 350cm and a height of 700cm. The fuel is based on

69
𝑈𝑈𝐹𝐹4 without details on the exact composition. It is anticipated that the reactor will have an
enrichment between 5-19 wt% U235 [19]. The MSRE reactor was enriched to 33% [46],
but such an enrichment level is not permitted for civilian applications, thus the IMSR is
likely to maintain an enrichment level below 20% U235. Nevertheless, the fuel salt
composition for the MSRE is assumed for this study as it is a proven 𝑈𝑈𝐹𝐹4 fuel salt
composition with experimental results. Furthermore, the focus of this study is on activation
analysis of major reactor components and their effects on disposal costs as part of
decommissioning. Figure 4-1 shows the MSRE reactor vessel cross section and the IMSR
concept cross section.

RPV

Core

Containment vessel

Figure 4-1: MSRE vessel cross section (left) and Terrestrial’s IMSR module cross section [34]
[18].

The relevant information was extracted from knowledge of the MSRE and IMSR to design
a homogenous core reactor module in MCNPX. MSRE design specifications are included
in Table 2-1. The core diameter/height is 340/400cm and produces 400MWth of power.
MSRE composition ratios of the fuel salt and resulting masses of uranium nuclides is
summarized in Table 4-2. This informed the inputs for the homogenized core material in
the MCNPX model. Graphite reflectors (of 40cm radial thickness) were added to the core
periphery within the diameter prescribed for the IMSR to study the effects of irradiation on
the activity of the graphite and how that impacts its disposal costs.

70
 Table 4-2: MSRE fuel salt composition [34].

Salt purpose Li Be Zr U Total

Carrier (kg) 519.16 309.62 541.36 4520
Depleted uranium (kg) 11.55 - - 145.6 234.5
Highly enriched uranium (kg) 5.84 - - 73.59 118.55
Total fuel salt (kg) 534.3 309.62 541.36 219.19 4873.05

Table 4-3: Mass wt% of uranium nuclides in fuel salt mixture [34].

U-234 U-235 U-236 U-238

wt % 0.014 1.409 0.006 3.065

To homogenize the core region of the MCNPX MSR, consideration was given to the steady
state MSRE fuel salt mass and the mass of graphite in the core. The volume of the MSRE
fuel salt in the core was 0.703 m3 with a density of 2327.5 kg/m3 [33]. This results in a fuel
salt mass of 1636.2 kg. The volume of the graphite moderator is approximated by
computing the volume of the graphite salt matrix (2.65 m3) and subtracting the volume of
the fuel salt in the core. This resulted in a volume of the 1.95 m3 for a graphite density of
1860 kg/ m3. The resultant graphite mass is 3628.5 kg. From these calculations, graphite is
66% of the total mass in the core, with the fuel salt responsible for the balance. These ratios
are maintained in scaling the weight percentage contributions of graphite and fuel salt
materials in homogenizing the core. Non-core locations were assumed to be fuel salt
material only.

Table 4-4: MSRE Core graphite and fuel salt dimensions [34].

Graphite matrix diameter (cm) 140.6

Core Graphite height (cm) 170.03
3
Graphite density (g/cm ) 1.86
3
Fuel salt density (g/cm ) 2.33
Fuel salt volume in core (m3) 0.703
3
Core region volume (m ) 2.65
3
Graphite volume (m ) 1.95
Moderator mass (kg) 3628.5
Fuel salt mass (kg) 1636.2

71
MCNPX inputs for the reactor are included in Appendix A. Figure 4-2 shows a schematic
of the simplified design according to the full-scale dimensions of the IMSR.

Core Core can

Graphite reflectors

Fuel salt only RPV

Figure 4-2: MCNPX MSR Model cross section.

Fratoni et al. [33], studied the impacts of various MSRE benchmarking model
simplifications on the effective multiplication factor. Flattening the vessel head and bottom
resulted in a 0.243% reactivity increase due to more fuel salt accommodated by the
geometry relative to dome shapes of the original vessel head/bottom [33]. Absence of
thermal shielding around the vessel structure resulted in higher leakage, hence a 0.885%
negative reactivity insertion. The MCNPX design is not optimized for the best neutronic
or thermal hydraulic performance, rather to inform inputs into the activation effects of
operating an MSR over a 5 to 10-year period. The 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 of the MCNPX MSR with
Hastelloy N based components was 0.99362 ± 0.00023. Fratoni et al.’s MSRE model using
Serpent gave 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =1.02132 ± 0.000034 with ENDF/B-VII.1 libraries [33]. The benchmark
calculation reported 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 = 0.99978 ± 0.00420 [33]. MCNPX MSR 𝑘𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 is 0.62% lower
than that of the benchmark for the MSRE providing some degree of confidence in the
homogenized core design.

72
Similar to the analysis in Chapter 3, the MSR design was run for a kcode to compute
probability densities for different energy bins. This was used to define the volumetric
source. A watt spectrum volume source case was also tested. Flux was tallied for the core,
graphite reflectors, core can and vessel cylinder. The result of these calculations is
summarized in Table 4-5. The volumetric source flux for both cases is relatively similar,
with the watt spectrum resulting in generally higher flux by a factor of 2 in the core.
Building on work done in Chapter 2, the analytically approximated core flux for the
Terrestrial IMSR was of a similar order of magnitude (9.67E+14 n/cm2-s). The MSR
internals were assumed to experience the same flux as the core. Core can and reflector flux
results from Table 4-5 suggest this was a large overestimation. The vessel cylinder’s flux
in Chapter 2 was an order of magnitude higher than the Table 4-5 result, further indicating
an overestimation of flux by the analytical computations.

Table 4-5: Total flux results for the MSR volumetric and watt spectrum sources.

Hastelloy N metal SS316 metal components

components Watt Spectrum source
Volumetric Source Volumetric Source (n/cm2-s)
(n/cm2-s) (n/cm2-s)
Core 2.40E+14 ± 0.00% 2.40E+14 ± 0.00% 4.03E+14 ± 0.00%
Graphite 4.48E+13 ± 0.03% 4.48E+13 ± 0.03% 7.82E+13 ± 0.04%
reflectors
Core can 4.00E+12 ± 0.05% 4.48E+12 ± 0.05% 9.22E+12 ± 0.06%
Vessel cylinder 3.72E+11 ± 0.08% 5.61E+11 ± 0.07% 1.32E+12 ± 0.09%

Flux variations radially provide more insight into the shape of the flux at different heights
throughout the vessel structure. Figure 4-3 provides several radial flux profiles at various
heights. The distribution of the flux shows a higher flux in the core region. This is expected
because of the moderating effect of graphite that enables the neutrons to thermalize and
ultimately facilitates fission.

73
Figure 4-3: Radial variation of flux at different axial positions in the MSR RPV. At z=82.26cm is
approximately midway of the lower fuel salt region (ΔF = ±5.34%); z= 152.77cm is the bottom
region of the core (ΔF = ±0.32%); z=340.79cm is close to the core midplane (ΔF = ±0.14%);
z=552.31cm is the core top region (ΔF = ±0.324%); z=622.82cm is the midpoint of the fuel salt
region above the core (ΔF = ±5.60%). Note: y-axis has been individually scaled.

74
Axially, the flux peaks in the core region, maintaining a relatively flat shape in that region
before declining in the fuel salt region (Figure 4-4). Core midplane to average core flux
peaking factor is 1.81.

Figure 4-4: Average axial flux profile (ΔF = ±62.2%).

Future work on this issue would consider a more detailed MSR design that would fully
capture self-shielding effects and flatten the power profile further to ensure compliance
with industry standards for thermal hotspots in the core. The next section will discuss the
results of the activation analysis.

4.2 MSR Activation analysis

This section focuses on activation analysis of graphite reflectors, the core can and vessel
cylinder. The analysis was conducted for two primary steel material types: Hastelloy N,
and SS316. Both cases were considered with the presence of a cobalt impurity, to provide
the worst-case scenario for activity levels. Cobalt impurity levels were 1.38 wt% for
Hastelloy N and 0.25 wt% for SS316. Graphite reflectors were also designed with a
maximum nitrogen impurity of 0.003 wt% (or 30 ppm). CINDER ran 12 total timesteps,
half of which were irradiation and the rest considered periods of decay. The irradiation
timesteps consider up to 10 years of operation. Decay periods extended up to 20 years post
a permanent shutdown. The analysis that follows focuses specifically on irradiation
timesteps at 5, 7, and 10 years. Activity after a 20-year decay period following a 10-year
operating lifetime is also presented. Terrestrial Energy intends to replace their in-core
internals including graphite every seven years; they also expect a greater than 50-year

75
overall plant facility lifetime operation [39]. The company’s commercial plan is generally
in agreement with the estimated 5 to 10-year operational lifetime of the components
discussed within the analysis that follows. ORIGEN comparisons are included in Appendix
D to illustrate results from an alternative code base. Activity after a 20-year decay period
is also included in Appendix D for operating lifetimes of 5 and 7 years.

4.2.1 Results

Graphite Reflectors
Graphite reflectors are mostly composed of carbon with minor contributions from other
elements. The graphite composition used for the study can be found in Appendix A. Figure
4-5 to 4-7 summarize the results from the graphite reflector components of both cases. C-
14 and Ni-59 are the long-lived nuclides which are activated throughout the reactor’s
operation. Ni-59 appears in negligible quantities relative to the activity of C-14.

Figure 4-5: Graphite reflector specific activity for long-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s 10
CFR, section 61.55.

As with results presented in Chapter 3, short-lived nuclides dominate the activity of the
reflectors as shown by Figure 4-6.

76
 Figure 4-6: Graphite reflector specific activity for short-lived nuclides as defined by the NRC’s
10 CFR, section 61.55.

Be-8 (7E-17s half-life) contributes 155.1 Ci/m3 to the overall activity of the reflectors.
Thus, it is responsible for the shape of the curve for nuclides with a half-life less than five
years (Figure 4-6) and the total specific activity displayed in Figure 4-7. Given Be-8’s short
half-life, the activity of the reflectors drops by two orders of magnitude within one second
of shutdown. The activity following shutdown is almost exclusively driven by C-14 as it
maintains an activity of 6 Ci/m3 throughout the decay period observed. This is expected
given its 5700-year half-life.

Figure 4-7: Graphite reflector total specific activity.

Table 4-6 provides a detailed summary of the reflector’s specific activity for various
timesteps conducted in the analysis. C-14 is within the class C limits for NRC. Graphite is
not a metal therefore, the criteria for C-14 activity in non-metals has a limit of 8 Ci/m3 for
class C waste versus the 80 Ci/m3 given for C-14 in activated metal [27]. None of the other

77
nuclides of interest exceed class C limits therefore the graphite waste classification is
determined by C-14.

Table 4-6: Graphite reflector activity at 5-10 years of operation and a 20-year decay period for
shutdown after 10 years of operation.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.05E+00 4.25E+00 6.06E+00 6.04E+00
Ni-59 4.72E-22 5.66E-21 6.55E-20 6.55E-20
H-3 5.81E-03 8.16E-03 1.16E-02 3.78E-03
Co-60 4.15E-08 2.73E-07 1.35E-06 9.76E-08
Ni-63 1.43E-18 1.13E-16 3.80E-15 3.31E-15
total of nuclides 1.66E+02 1.66E+02 1.65E+02 1.43E-08
with <5yr half-life
Graphite reflector CLASS C
waste Classification

The results presented above apply to both the Hastelloy N and SS316 cases as their impact
on neuron flux were negligible.

Core can
The core can sits at the periphery of the graphite reflectors and guides the flow of fuel salt
whilst reinforcing stability in the core. The analysis will present two sets of results for the
component: SS316 and Hastelloy N material base.

Hastelloy N and SS316 experience activation of the same group of nuclides. Their
elemental compositions result in varying activity levels for the respective nuclides. In
Figure 4-8, both materials have their long-lived nuclide activity dominated by Ni-59,
however the Hastelloy N core can have an activity that is 5.6x higher than that of SS316.
This is due to the higher nickel content of Hastelloy N which is approximately 5.5x higher
than SS316. C-14 specific activity features prominently in SS316 as a long-lived nuclide
due to its 0.06 wt% contribution to the composition of the material. Its activation in
Hastelloy N remains negligible within the time period modelled.

78
 Figure 4-8: Core can specific activity for long-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316:

Figure 4-9: Core can specific activity for short-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

Figure 4-10: Core can total specific. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

Short-lived nuclide activity is driven by Co-60, Ni-63 and nuclides with a half-life less than
five years. Ni-63 is produced from neutron capture in Ni-62 which has a 3.6% natural
abundance in nickel. Cobalt is a byproduct of copper and nickel ore mining deposits [48].
It can remain as an impurity substance even after milling and processing of copper and
nickel. Cobalt was allocated a 2% impurity relative to the nominal nickel content of SS316
and Hastelloy N for the analysis conducted in this study [22]. Cobalt is entirely Co-59 in
its natural form. The creation of Co-60 is driven by neutron capture in Co-59 (𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐 =
37.18𝑏𝑏) with negligible contributions from Fe-60 beta decay. Activity of nuclides with
half-life less than five years is comprised of Co-60*, Mn-56 and Cr-51. Cobalt-60 in its
excited state (Co-60*) contributes to 63.6% of the activity of this group of nuclides after
10 years of operation for Hastelloy N. Mn-56 and Cr-51 each contribute 13.2% and 15.7%

79
respectively. In SS316, Mn-56 dominates the shorter than five-year half-life nuclides with
50.7% of the activity. Cr-51 contributes to 24.8% of the activity and Co-60*, 8.7%. Iron-
55 is also highly activated with 12.8% of the less than five-year half-life nuclide activity
in SS316. Co-60* decays to Co-60 (with 99.75% probability) via an isomeric transition.
The 628 second half-life of Co-60* suggests sustained Co-60 production via the decay of
Co-60*. Mn-56 is derived from neutron capture in Mn-55 and beta decay of Cr-56. The
results show negligible activation from Cr-56, thus its contribution to the activity of Mn-
56 is insignificant. Manganese in its natural form is Mn-55, and is included in the
composition of both Hastelloy N and SS316. Furthermore, Mn-55 is formed from electron
capture in Fe-55 (𝑡𝑡1/2 = 2.74𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦). Given the presence of iron in both materials to varying
degrees, this explains the high activation of Mn-56. In particular, SS316 is majority
composed of iron isotopes and thus experiences a predominance in Mn-56 activation.
Finally, Cr-51 activity is due to neutron capture in Cr-50. Mn-51 can also be a contributor
by electron capture decay however the analysis showed its activity to be negligible.

Table 4-7 and 4-8 summarize the activity results of key nuclides at different timesteps for
Hastelloy N and SS316 core cans. The Hastelloy N core can is greater than class C waste
because of the Ni-59 specific activity which exceeds its class C limits. Since Ni-59 is a
long-lived nuclide, this automatically results in the core can being greater than class C
waste. Assuming Ni-59 activity remained within its class C limits, the core can would still
be greater than class C because of the class C limits exceeded by Ni-63 in all three timesteps
described by Table 4-7.

80
Table 4-7: Hastelloy N core can activity at 5 to 10 years of operation and a 20-year decay period
for shutdown after 10 years of operation.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 4.16E-20 8.15E-20 1.66E-19 1.66E-19
Ni-59 4.45E+02 6.20E+02 8.78E+02 8.77E+02
Nb-94 3.42E-05 4.78E-05 6.84E-05 6.83E-05
Tc-99 4.23E-01 5.92E-01 8.44E-01 8.45E-01
H-3 2.70E-03 3.77E-03 5.36E-03 1.74E-03
Co-60 1.14E+06 1.42E+06 1.72E+06 1.24E+05
Ni-63 5.22E+04 7.24E+04 1.02E+05 8.89E+04
SI-90 2.66E-11 3.70E-11 5.18E-11 3.20E-11
total of nuclides 1.99E+06 1.99E+06 1.98E+06 1.58E+02
with <5yr half-life
Core can waste >CLASS C
Classification

In the case of a SS316 core can, long-lived nuclides are all within class C limits, however
the activity of Ni-63 exceeds its class C limits within the first 5 years of operation. This
results in the classification of the SS316 core can as greater than class C waste. Even after
20 years of allowing nuclides to decay, Ni-63 activity remains elevated due to its 101-year
half-life.

Table 4-8: SS316 core can activity at 5 to 10 years of operation and a 20-year decay period for
shutdown after 10 years of operation.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.93E+01 4.10E+01 5.85E+01 5.83E+01
Ni-59 8.00E+01 1.11E+02 1.57E+02 1.57E+02
Nb-94 4.73E-06 6.62E-06 9.47E-06 9.46E-06
Tc-99 6.54E-02 9.14E-02 1.30E-01 1.31E-01
H-3 9.92E-03 1.38E-02 1.95E-02 6.31E-03
Co-60 2.07E+05 2.57E+05 3.11E+05 2.24E+04
Ni-63 9.89E+03 1.37E+04 1.93E+04 1.68E+04
SI-90 4.16E-12 5.79E-12 8.10E-12 5.01E-12
total of nuclides 2.53E+06 2.57E+06 2.60E+06 2.30E+03
with <5yr half-life
Core can waste >CLASS C
Classification

81
Vessel Cylinder

The RPV is the first physical barrier for the release of radiation from the fuel in an MSR
concept. It sits inside the large vessel containment that is characteristic of most MSR
designs. The containment vessel is not modelled in this study; however, it presents an
opportunity to expand the scope of the model to include it in future work. The activation
analysis presented in this section, focuses on the cylindrical portion of the vessel as that is
where majority of the activity is concentrated for the RPV. Figure 4-11 to 4-13 summarize
the variations of activity with time for each material type. Dominant long-lived nuclides
(Figure 4-11) are identical to those described in the core can activation analysis section.
For Hastelloy N, Ni-59 and Tc-99 dominate the long-lived nuclide activity. SS316 long
term activity is driven by C-14 and Ni-59.

Figure 4-11: Vessel Cylinder specific activity for long-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

Co-60, Ni-63 and nuclides with a half-life less than five years constitute 99.98% of the
overall activity of the Hastelloy N vessel cylinder (Figure 4-12a and 4-13a). Co-60
contributes 140,100 Ci/m3 after 10 years of operation, which is the highest of any other
nuclide. Other notable activity contributions are from Co-60*, Mn-56 and Cr-51 which
collectively account for 148,060 Ci/m3 after 10 years of irradiation. The activity of the
aforementioned nuclides drops rapidly within the first year of post-shutdown. Cr-51 𝑡𝑡1/2 =
27.7 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑, has the longest half-life of the three nuclides. These short-lived nuclides result
in a drop in overall vessel activity by several orders of magnitude. Allowing a 20-year
decay period after the 10-year operating period would result in a 18x reduction in the
activity since shutdown. SS316 vessel activity is also driven by short-lived nuclides (Figure
4-12b and 4-13b), with Mn-56, Cr-51 and Fe-55 contributing 79.2% to the overall activity

82
after 10 years of irradiation. Following 20 years of nuclide decay, the activity of the vessel
drops to 1.4% of its peak, which is at 10 years of irradiation.

Figure 4-12: Vessel Cylinder specific activity for short-lived nuclides. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

Figure 4-13: Vessel Cylinder total specific activity. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

Table 4-9 and 4-10 summarize the specific activity for nuclides of interest and the
appropriate waste classification. The Hastelloy N vessel cylinder is atleast class C waste
but can exceed Class C limits for an irradiation period of 10 years. For all three timesteps,
the specific activity of Ni-59 puts the vessel within class C limits but not class A due to its
activity being higher than 10% of the class C limit. Consideration of short-lived nuclides,
results in Ni-63 being the class determining nuclide. The NRC’s Class C limit for Ni-63 is
7000 Ci/m3 [27]. Therefore, the vessel is at or below the limits for class C waste for 5-7
years of irradiation and a 20-year decay period. The latter case falls exactly on the limit,
hence the ambiguity of its classification. A longer decay period would result in lower
activity from Ni-63 and thus make the vessel cylinder firmly within Class C limits.

83
 Table 4-9: Hastelloy N vessel cylinder activity at 5 to 10 years of operation and a 20-year decay
period for shutdown after 10 years of operation.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.46E-21 6.79E-21 1.39E-20 1.38E-20
Ni-59 3.55E+01 4.97E+01 7.10E+01 7.10E+01
Nb-94 9.81E-06 1.37E-05 1.96E-05 1.96E-05
Tc-99 5.52E-02 7.73E-02 1.11E-01 1.11E-01
H-3 7.08E-04 9.47E-04 1.27E-03 4.12E-04
Co-60 9.24E+04 1.15E+05 1.40E+05 1.01E+04
Ni-63 4.13E+03 5.74E+03 8.11E+03 7.06E+03
SI-90 6.11E-13 8.56E-13 1.21E-12 7.50E-13
total of nuclides 1.62E+05 1.63E+05 1.63E+05 1.25E+01
with <5yr half-life
Vessel cylinder
waste CLASS C >CLASS C CLASS C/ >CLASS C 1
Classification

The alternative case of a SS316 vessel material results in Class C waste. The activity of all
long-lived nuclides is within Class C limits for reasons similar to the Hastelloy N vessel
case. The differentiating factor is the lower activity of Ni-63 which does not exceed Class
C limits. This therefore, results in the vessel being comfortably classified as C level waste.
Table 4-10: SS316 vessel cylinder activity at 5 to10 years of operation and a 20-year decay
period for shutdown after 10 years of operation.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.22E+00 4.51E+00 6.44E+00 6.42E+00
Ni-59 8.93E+00 1.25E+01 1.78E+01 1.78E+01
Nb-94 1.45E-06 2.02E-06 2.89E-06 2.89E-06
Tc-99 1.02E-02 1.43E-02 2.05E-02 2.05E-02
H-3 2.77E-03 3.72E-03 5.00E-03 1.62E-03
Co-60 2.32E+04 2.89E+04 3.51E+04 2.53E+03
Ni-63 1.09E+03 1.52E+03 2.15E+03 1.87E+03
SI-90 1.46E-13 2.04E-13 2.88E-13 1.78E-13
total of nuclides 2.80E+05 2.85E+05 2.89E+05 2.53E+02
with <5yr half-life
Vessel cylinder CLASS C
waste
Classification

1
Ni-63 activity is within 1% of the class C limit. As the limiting nuclide, it results in the vessel having an
ambiguous classification of Class C or greater than Class C.

84
4.3 MSR Disposal costs

Disposal costs for MSR components were computed assuming no limits on the cumulative
activity and handling fees charged by the LLW disposal facility. If the waste was greater
than class C, it was charged the same rate as class B/C level waste for waste volume
charges. This is due to lack of data to indicate how much disposal of intermediate/high
level waste will cost. In Chapter 2, a 20x multiple was assumed for MSR waste greater
than class C. Sensitivity analysis on MSR disposal costs with PWR activation charge limits
is discussed in Chapter 5.

Figure 4-14 to 4-16 summarize disposal cost comparisons of the three components
analyzed. The graphite reflectors were projected to cost $5.1 million for operating period
of 5-10 years, including the radioactivity and dose rate surcharges amounting to $ 1 million
each. This could also be put in terms of a dollars per kilogram assuming a reflector
replacement every 5-10 years over a 60-year period. The design has 28.05 MT of graphite
reflector; this amounts to a disposal cost of $1,091-2,182/kg. This is 36-73% of the
lifecycle cost of graphite estimated by [38]. Allowing nuclides to decay for up to 20 years
would reduce the disposal costs to $3.8 million. Radioactivity charges drop by over 60%
within the first year after permanent shutdown. The decay of short-lived nuclides drives
this reduction in radioactivity costs.

Figure 4-14: Graphite reflector disposal costs for the MSR.

85
Hastelloy N core can disposal cost $820-980 million for immediate disposal after 5-10
years of operation. The costs drop to $55.3 million after a 20-year decay period. SS316
core can costs were slightly lower at $707-755 million for an equivalent operational
timeframe. Nuclide decay over a 20-year period would drop the disposal cost to $10.9
million. Ni-59, Co-60 and Ni-63 are the main contributors to the disposal costs. Hastelloy
N experiences several times higher activity for each nuclide at all timesteps modelled.
Given the half-life of these nuclides being greater than five years, 20 years does not provide
enough time for the excess activity to subside. This results in Hastelloy N being reasonably
more expensive to dispose of than SS316 as shown in Figure 4-15.

Figure 4-15: Core can disposal costs for the MSR. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

Finally, the vessel’s disposal costs are $274-329 million and $322-345 million for a
Hastelloy N and SS316 material respectively in a 5 to 10-year operating period (Figure
4-16). If safe storage decommissioning is pursued for 20 years, the final disposal costs drop
by 94-98.5% from the peak at shutdown. The immediate disposal costs for the SS316 vessel
are higher because of the higher activity of nuclides with a half-life shorter than five years.
The nuclides decay away and Hastelloy N becomes the more expensive vessel material to
dispose of after 20 years of decay. Ni-63 dominates the activity of both materials a few
years after shutdown, but its activity is 3-4x higher in Hastelloy N than SS316, thus
contributing to higher disposal costs.

86
 Figure 4-16:Vessel cylinder disposal costs for the MSR. a) Hastelloy N; b) SS316

In the case of the vessel and core can, radioactivity and handling costs are the main charge
items. Handling costs are scaled with the radioactivity charges as shown in equation 17
(Chapter 2). In the absence of a limit imposed on either cost item, an increase of activity
will proportionally increase the handling costs. The analysis in this Chapter showed that
SS316 will be a lower cost material for disposal than Hastelloy N assuming same lifetime
of the material. Its practicality for usage should be considered in terms of its technical
limitations for withstanding the harsh conditions imposed on it during reactor operations.
High temperatures and radiation can also accelerate corrosion, therefore serious
consideration of SS316 requires thorough study of its material properties. Sandhi and
Szpunar [49], analyzed corrosion resistance in Hastelloy N, SS316, SS304 and alloy X-
750; they found Hastelloy N to be the most corrosion resistant, with 12.5x lower corrosion
damage thickness compared to alloy X-750 which was the least resistant. SS316 was
second most corrosion resistant, experiencing 41% more chromium diffusion to its surface
than Hastelloy N [49]. These results suggest Hastelloy N could provide the longest
component lifetime. Post-shutdown, contamination in an MSR would be considerably
higher than a PWR therefore adding to volume of waste produced, and by extension cost.

CINDER computed the core’s activity for an operating period of 5 to 10 years to range
between 7.77E+06 Ci/m3 and 1.17E+07 Ci/m3. Li et al. [50], modelled dose distribution in
a liquid fueled thorium MSR which showed neutron and gamma dose rates at 108 Rad/hr
and 107 Rad/hr respectively in the core. Graphite reflectors and the reactor pressure vessel
both experienced neutron/gamma dose rates of 107/106 Rad/hr respectively [50]. Thus, the
core will be at least an order of magnitude more activated than the structural components

87
studied in this thesis. The effects of fuel salt contamination on the MSR’s structures is
beyond the scope of this study however it is an important area of future work to assess the
costs of decontamination within the decommissioning process.

Table 4-11 provides a specific cost summary of the disposal costs of the MSR from the
highest cost at shutdown to the lower limit 20-years post shutdown.
Table 4-11: Summary of MCNPX MSR disposal cost range for 5 to 10 years of operation and 20-
year decay period post shutdown.

MCNPX MSR
SS316 Hastelloy N
RPV disposal cost range $5.2-345 million $19.7-329 million
Core Can disposal costs $10.9-755 million $55.3-980 million
Graphite reflector disposal cost $3.8-5.1 million
Total disposal cost ($) $0.02-1.1 billion $0.08-1.31 billion
Disposal cost ($/kWe) 104 - 5,756 417 – 6,844

The results in Table 4-11 are of a similar order of magnitude to the estimated disposal costs
displayed in Table 2-20. Drawing from Section 2.4, $1/MWh would generate $1.2
million/yr (up to $6.8 million over 5 years and $15.5 million over 10 years 1). This would
not be enough funds to cover disposal costs of the few components considered in this study
(RPV, core can and graphite) immediately after shutdown. Allowing the components to be
safely stored for up to 20-years, would reduce the disposal costs considerably. The fund
would also continue to compound for two decades, growing to $18 million (5-year
operation) or $41 million (10-year operation). This assumes a 5% annual interest rate and
no further contributions to the fund after 5 or 10 years of operation. For 10-year
contributions plus 20 years of additional compounding, the disposal of SS316 components
(including graphite) is possible with sufficient financial flexibility to incur cost overruns
with negligible risk of shortfalls. The funds accumulated would still be insufficient to cover
the cost of disposing Hastelloy N components after 20 years, but would instead require 34
years of compounding post shutdown to accumulate to $80 million. Extending safe storage
beyond 20 years would also continue to lower Hastelloy N component activity. Therefore,

1
Assuming 200 MWe power level at 70% capacity factor and 5% annually compounded interest rate

88
the lower limit for the cost of disposal would likely be lower than the $80 million shown
in Table 4-11. Five-year contributions would require 23 and 51 years of additional
compounding to cover the current SS316 and Hastelloy N component disposal costs
(including graphite) respectively. Safe storage would result in additional costs for
procuring dry casks, loading waste, and storing waste onsite until the end of the decay
period. Based on light water reactor dry cask storage, the total cost of storage per cask
would be $3.4 million assuming a 20-year decay period (Appendix F) [51, 52, 53]. The
Holtec HI-STAR 100 dry casks accommodate 4 m3 of waste 1 [54]. Decommissioning fund
compounding should take this into account when planning for waste disposal. Power
uprates, and improvements in capacity factors would accumulate funds faster without
necessarily increasing the disposal cost by an equivalent proportion. Consideration of the
effect of power up-rates in the MCNPX model is necessary future work to assess the impact
of such upgrades on disposal cost unit economics. Chapter 5 discusses sensitivity of the
PWR and MSR to variations in impurity contents. The PWR is also analyzed for activation
sensitivity to flux and component thickness increases. Finally, PWR radioactivity charge
limits are imposed on MSR components to assess impact on disposal costs.

1
Based on 24 PWR assemblies each with dimensions 21cm x 21cm x 380 cm.

89
5. Sensitivity Analysis

This Chapter includes analysis detailing the impact of lowering or eliminating impurities
in component materials on activation and by extension, disposal costs. The primary
impurities of interest are cobalt, niobium and nitrogen. Cobalt is an impurity in all the steel-
based materials that were used in analyzing the PWR and MSR’s components. Niobium is
an impurity in SS304 which was used in the PWR’s core shroud and barrel. Trace amounts
of nitrogen can be found in graphite. The first section will discuss activation sensitivity of
SS304 and SA508 to elimination of cobalt, and niobium impurities. In the MSR, graphite
is analyzed for sensitivity to nitrogen content. Hastelloy N and SS316 are modelled for
sensitivity to cobalt. Section 5.3 explores the PWR’s activation sensitivity to increases in
flux and component wall thickness to match [20, 14]. The activation analysis in Sections
5.1 and 5.2 is conducted exclusively using CINDER. Section 5.3 includes a comparison of
CINDER and ORIGEN results to the PNNL study results from [14] in Appendix B.
Activation and disposal cost plots are included in the Appendix C. Section 5.4 assess the
impact of imposing radioactivity charge limit on the MSR’s components which are equal
to PWR limits discussed in Chapter’s 2 and 3. Radioactivity charges from Table 2-6 are
maintained at $400/Ci as was the case in Chapter’s 3 and 4.

90
5.1 PWR sensitivity

Core shroud sensitivity to Nb-93 and Co-59

Core shroud sensitivity considers the impact of removing Nb-93 and Co-59 impurities on
SS304’s activity. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 5-1. The adjustment of
cobalt and niobium content in SS304 has a direct effect on the activity of Nb-94 and Co-
60. Niobium experiences a four order of magnitude drop in activity relative to the base
case. Co-60’s activity reduces by two orders of magnitude. The presence of Fe-59 drives
production of Co-59 as a daughter nuclide of its beta decay, which then transmutes into
Co-60. Classification of the shroud remains greater than class C because of the persistently
high activity of C-14 and Ni-59 which exceed their class C limits.

The immediate disposal costs for the core shroud assuming the billable activity limits from
Chapter 3 still apply, are $14.15 million. Ten years after shutdown, the costs remain the
same. These results exhibit the same costs as those noted in Chapter 3 because of the billing
limits which are still exceed even ten years of post-shutdown.
Table 5-1: Core shroud specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR.

MCNPX results MCNPX results 40 years 10-year decay

30 years of of irradiation (Ci/m3) post shutdown for
irradiation an operating
(Ci/m3) period of 40 years
(Ci/m3)
C-14 8.26E+01 1.10E+02 1.10E+02
Ni-59 2.91E+02 3.74E+02 3.74E+02
Nb-94 2.54E-04 3.34E-04 3.34E-04
Tc-99 1.07E-01 1.38E-01 1.38E-01
H-3 1.66E+01 2.22E+01 1.27E+01
Co-60 1.46E+03 2.23E+03 6.00E+02
Ni-63 3.47E+04 4.43E+04 4.14E+04
Sr-90 6.75E-09 1.12E-08 8.81E-09
total of nuclides with <5yr half-
life 2.25E+06 2.25E+06 2.88E+04
Shroud classification >CLASS C

91
Core barrel sensitivity to Nb-93 and Co-59

The core barrel is also made of SS304, therefore similar trends to the core shroud persist.
Nb-94’s activity reduces by three orders of magnitude relative to the base case. Immediate
disposal costs also remain unchanged, at $13 million for 30-40 years of operation. A decay
period of 10 years reduces the disposal costs to $5.9 million. This is 32% cheaper than the
base case at the same timestep. The barrels lower flux makes its overall activity lower than
that of the shroud. Its activity drops below the billable limits after 10 years of decay,
thereby making the disposal costs sensitive to the activity of the impurities. The barrel
remains as class C waste because the activity of Ni-63 is above class B limits.
Table 5-2: Core Barrel specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR.

MCNPX results 30 MCNPX results 40 10-year decay post shutdown

years of irradiation years of irradiation for an operating period of 40
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) years (Ci/m3)
C-14 1.66E+00 2.22E+00 2.21E+00
Ni-59 6.45E+00 8.60E+00 8.60E+00
Nb-94 1.51E-05 2.02E-05 2.02E-05
Tc-99 1.36E-03 1.81E-03 1.81E-03
H-3 5.57E-01 6.32E-01 3.60E-01
Co-60 2.90E+01 2.96E+01 7.94E+00
Ni-63 7.16E+02 9.23E+02 8.62E+02
Sr-90 1.60E-11 2.65E-11 2.08E-11
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 4.55E+04 4.55E+04 5.95E+02
MXNPX Barrel CLASS C
Waste Classification

Vessel sensitivity to Co-59

The low carbon steel of the vessel has a cobalt impurity which is removed to test the
sensitivity of the activity to this change. Results are summarized by Table 5-3. Co-60’s
activity is reduced from 1.49 Ci/m3 to 0.0452 Ci/ m3 after 30 years of irradiation. This is a
33x reduction in the activity of Co-60, due to the removal of Co-59 as an impurity in the
low carbon steel. Immediate disposal costs for 30-40 years of operation are $3.66 million.
A 10-year decay period reduces disposal costs to $0.39 million These costs are similar to
the base case disposal costs (Chapter 3), because Co-60 is a minor contributor to overall
activity in both cases. The principal driver of disposal costs are nuclides with a half-life

92
shorter than five years. Therefore, the disposal costs are not particularly sensitive to the
cobalt content of the vessel at 0.15 wt% or less. Higher concentrations of cobalt would
result in higher activity contributions from Co-60 in the vessel as witnessed with SS316
and Hastelloy N.
Table 5-3: Vessel specific activity after 30 to 40 years of full power operation for MCNPX model
PWR.

MCNPX results 30 MCNPX results 40 10-year decay post shutdown

years of irradiation years of irradiation for an operating period of 40
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) years (Ci/m3)
C-14 1.12E-03 1.49E-03 1.49E-03
Ni-59 9.84E-04 1.31E-03 1.31E-03
Nb-94 4.89E-06 6.51E-06 6.51E-06
Tc-99 1.45E-04 1.94E-04 1.94E-04
H-3 8.28E-03 9.09E-03 5.18E-03
Co-60 4.52E-02 4.58E-02 1.23E-02
Ni-63 1.08E-01 1.39E-01 1.30E-01
Sr-90 1.38E-13 2.30E-13 1.81E-13
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.59E+02 1.59E+02 3.06E+00
MXNPX Vessel CLASS A
Waste Classification

5.2 MSR sensitivity

Graphite sensitivity to nitrogen

Analyzing the response of graphite’s activation to lowering the nitrogen content is useful
for understanding the impact on disposal costs. The nitrogen-14 (N-14) content used in
Chapter 4 was 0.003 wt%; this analysis considers the case of N-14 reduced to 0.0005 wt%
and its effect on the activity of the graphite reflectors in the MSR. This analysis is run for
reflectors in an MSR with Hastelloy N components and that with SS316 components
however only the former is presented due to the very similar results produced. The results
for the reflector sensitivity analysis is presented in Table 5-4.

93
 Table 5-4: Reduced nitrogen content graphite reflector activity for an operating period of 5 to
10-years and a 20-year decay period following a 10-year operating lifetime.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 7.34E-01 1.03E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00
Ni-59 4.84E-22 5.82E-21 6.73E-20 6.73E-20
H-3 4.99E-03 7.00E-03 9.99E-03 3.24E-03
Co-60 4.23E-08 2.80E-07 1.39E-06 9.99E-08
Ni-63 1.48E-18 1.18E-16 3.97E-15 3.45E-15
total of nuclides 1.67E+02 1.67E+02 1.66E+02 1.43E-08
with <5yr half-life
Graphite reflector CLASS A CLASS C
waste Classification

From Table 5-4, it is clear that the overall waste classification of the reflectors does not
change. The most notable difference lies in the activity of C-14. In the reduced nitrogen
content scenario, the activity is 4.1x lower than the base case across the timesteps
considered. N-14 is a daughter nuclide of C-14 beta decay but due to C-14’s 5700-year
half-life, no N-14 is produced within the timeframe observed. The reduction in the specific
activity of C-14 has no material impact on the disposal costs. In this case, the disposal costs
are $2.69 million for a 5-year operating period and $5.08 million for an operating period
of 7-10 years. After 20 years of decay, the disposal costs reduce to $3.8 million. The base
case disposal costs were computed to be $5.1 million for 5-10 years of operation and $3.8
million after 20 years of decay. Interestingly, up to 5 years of operation in the reduced
nitrogen concentration case, the activity of C-14 remains below 0.8 Ci/m3, which makes
the reflectors class A waste and reducing waste volume charges by 10x. This explains the
lower disposal cost for 5-year a operating lifetime. Reducing the lifetime of the reflectors
would help realize disposal cost savings of 47% in a low nitrogen concentration scenario.
In all other cases, the savings are not significant thus not justifying the potentially added
cost of reducing impurities in the absence of material performance gains such as a
considerable extension in the useful life of the reflectors.

Core can sensitivity to Co-59

Core can sensitivity to Co-59 is analyzed for Hastelloy N and SS316 to assess the impact
on disposal costs for the component. Since cobalt is a nickel impurity, its absence is
compensated for by a commensurate increase in the nickel content of the core can. The

94
results of the analysis for Hastelloy N and SS316 are included in Table 5-5 and 5-6
respectively.

Comparing Table 5-5 with Table 4-7, indicates a five order of magnitude difference in the
specific activity of Co-60. In the base case, the activity of cobalt is on the order of
106 Ci/m3 for operations of 5-10 years and 105 Ci/m3 after 20 years of decay post shutdown.
The cobalt content in the Hastelloy is assumed to be 1.38 wt%. Eliminating the cobalt
impurity from the nickel alloy reduces the core can’s activity by 76.8%. An equivalent
drop in the radioactivity and handling charges is expected as a result. The cost of disposal
for the Hastelloy N core can without impurities is $213-228 million for immediate disposal
after 5-10 years of operation. The cost drops to $25.5 million for a 20-year decay period
after shutdown. The savings in disposal costs as a result of eliminating cobalt impurities
are $607-752 million for immediate disposal and at least $24 million for a delayed disposal
of 20 years.
Table 5-5: Hastelloy N activity for core can with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an
operating period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 4.58E-20 8.99E-20 1.83E-19 1.83E-19
Ni-59 4.87E+02 6.77E+02 9.58E+02 9.58E+02
Nb-94 3.48E-05 4.87E-05 6.97E-05 6.96E-05
Tc-99 4.47E-01 6.25E-01 8.91E-01 8.92E-01
H-3 2.76E-03 3.86E-03 5.50E-03 1.79E-03
Co-60 1.14E+01 2.67E+01 6.42E+01 4.63E+00
Ni-63 5.71E+04 7.92E+04 1.12E+05 9.72E+04
SI-90 2.99E-11 4.16E-11 5.83E-11 3.60E-11
total of nuclides 7.68E+05 7.70E+05 7.72E+05 1.69E+02
with <5yr half-life
Core can waste >CLASS C
Classification

The Co-60 activities in Table 4-8 are three to four orders of magnitude higher than Table
5-6. The amount of cobalt in the base case was 0.25 wt%, approximately two percent of
the combined nickel-cobalt content in the SS316. Overall activity of the component
without Co-59 impurity is 17% lower than the base case for the operating period. At 20
years after shutdown, the activity is 52% lower than the base case. This is a significant

95
drop in activity (at this timestep) due to the removal of the cobalt impurity. Specific activity
of Ni-59, Ni-63 and nuclides with a half-life shorter than five years remains relatively
unchanged from the base case. Given their collectively higher contribution to total activity,
this nullifies the effect of reduced Co-59 content during the operational period. Twenty
years after shutdown, the very short-lived nuclides decay, thus dropping the core can’s
activity significantly and increasing the influence of lower cobalt content on overall
activity.
Table 5-6: SS316 activity for core can with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an operating
period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.97E+01 4.15E+01 5.93E+01 5.91E+01
Ni-59 8.27E+01 1.15E+02 1.63E+02 1.63E+02
Nb-94 4.77E-06 6.68E-06 9.55E-06 9.54E-06
Tc-99 6.62E-02 9.26E-02 1.32E-01 1.32E-01
H-3 9.93E-03 1.38E-02 1.95E-02 6.32E-03
Co-60 2.23E+01 5.20E+01 1.07E+02 7.69E+00
Ni-63 1.02E+04 1.42E+04 2.00E+04 1.74E+04
SI-90 4.30E-12 5.98E-12 8.38E-12 5.18E-12
total of nuclides 2.33E+06 2.37E+06 2.41E+06 2.33E+03
with <5yr half-life
Core can waste >CLASS C
Classification

Immediate disposal costs for the SS316 core can without cobalt impurities are $603-625
million for a 5 to10-year irradiation period. Pursuing 20-year safe storage reduces the costs
to $5.3 million. The savings for immediate disposal is 14.7-17.2% of the base case. Twenty
years after shutdown, disposal costs are less than half of the base case costs.

Results from the SS316 and Hastelloy N core can show large activation sensitivity to cobalt
content. This effect is enhanced in Hastelloy N because of the higher cobalt content. This
presents an opportunity to realize more savings if the impurity can be eliminated. If cobalt
impurities are eliminated, Hastelloy N becomes more cost effective to dispose
immediately, however it remains more expensive if disposal takes place 20 years after
permanent shutdown.

96
Vessel cylinder sensitivity to Co-59
The vessel cylinder’s sensitivity analysis also eliminated Co-59 to investigate its effects on
disposal costs. In the base case, cobalt content in both SS316 and Hastelloy N is maintained
at 2 percent of the total nickel-cobalt wt% content. Table 5-7 and 5-8 summarize the results
of this analysis.

Similar to the core can, Co-60 activity in the Hastelloy N vessel reduces by five order of
magnitude. The activity of nickel isotopes increases slightly due to the original cobalt
content (1.38 wt%) being replaced by nickel. The waste classification of the vessel remains
unchanged. In the base case, the activity of Ni-63 at 20 years after shutdown is at the limit
of class C waste, but in the sensitivity study the activity increases enough to comfortably
classify the vessel as greater than class C waste. Removing the cobalt impurity results in
an immediate disposal cost of $79-82.2 million for a 5 to 10-year operating timeline. In
this case, immediate disposal is 71-75% cheaper than the base case. A 20-year decay period
results in a disposal cost of $9 million, which is at least $7 million cheaper than the base
case.
Table 5-7: Hastelloy N vessel cylinder activity with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an
operating period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.77E-21 7.40E-21 1.51E-20 1.51E-20
Ni-59 4.13E+01 5.77E+01 8.24E+01 8.24E+01
Nb-94 1.00E-05 1.40E-05 2.00E-05 2.00E-05
Tc-99 5.98E-02 8.37E-02 1.20E-01 1.20E-01
H-3 7.17E-04 9.60E-04 1.29E-03 4.19E-04
Co-60 1.31E+00 1.65E+00 2.06E+00 1.48E-01
Ni-63 4.79E+03 6.66E+03 9.42E+03 8.20E+03
SI-90 7.24E-13 1.01E-12 1.43E-12 8.86E-13
total of nuclides 6.76E+04 6.79E+04 6.81E+04 1.42E+01
with <5yr half-life
Vessel cylinder
waste CLASS C >CLASS C >CLASS C
Classification

Eliminating cobalt impurities in the SS316 vessel reduces activity by 16.7% relative to its
peak activity after 10 years of irradiation. This is in alignment with the 17% activity
reduction witnessed in the SS316 core can sensitivity analysis. Twenty years post

97
shutdown, the activity is 58% lower in the cobalt free vessel case compared to the base
case. The immediate disposal costs for the SS316 vessel are computed to be $277-287
million for an operating period of 5-10 years. These are potential cost savings of $45-58
million within this period. Pursuing disposal after a 20-year decay period results in disposal
costs of $2.6 million; this is 50% of the base case costs at the same timestep.
Table 5-8: SS316 vessel cylinder activity with no cobalt impurity. Model considers an operating
period of 5 to 10-years and a 20-year decay period for a 10-year operating period.

5 years of 7 years of 10 years of 20-year decay post

irradiation irradiation irradiation shutdown for an operating
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) period of 10 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.30E+00 4.62E+00 6.59E+00 6.58E+00
Ni-59 9.32E+00 1.30E+01 1.86E+01 1.86E+01
Nb-94 1.46E-06 2.04E-06 2.92E-06 2.92E-06
Tc-99 1.04E-02 1.46E-02 2.09E-02 2.09E-02
H-3 2.78E-03 3.73E-03 5.02E-03 1.63E-03
Co-60 4.79E-01 8.81E-01 1.56E+00 1.13E-01
Ni-63 1.14E+03 1.59E+03 2.24E+03 1.95E+03
SI-90 1.53E-13 2.14E-13 3.01E-13 1.86E-13
total of nuclides 2.61E+05 2.66E+05 2.70E+05 2.59E+02
with <5yr half-life
Vessel cylinder
waste CLASS C
Classification

The sensitivity analysis on Hastelloy N and SS316 components in the MSR has revealed
areas where costs could be reduced. Hastelloy N benefits most from cost reductions if
cobalt impurities are removed prior to irradiation of components. Savings of up to 75% are
significant and require further investigation into the cost of removing impurities at low
concentrations. The savings need to be reasonably higher than the cost of removing
impurities to make it a worthy investment. Minimizing N-14 impurities in graphite shows
minimal financial savings in the disposal process. Therefore, it does not seem worthwhile
to eliminate it from this perspective. If there is a substantial improvement in graphite useful
life or performance from minimizing the nitrogen impurity, this is worth pursing as it could
have considerable impact on operational and maintenance costs for the MSR. Measuring
this effect is beyond the scope of this thesis and is thus not covered here.

98
5.3 PWR activation sensitivity to flux and component mass
increases.

The discrepancies in flux levels and component volumes prompted a sensitivity analysis
that would seek to reproduce the flux levels and volumes reported in [20] and [14]
respectively. Adjusting the flux required understanding the factor discrepancy for each
component and then appropriately scaling the flux tally appropriately. Increasing the
volume of the components requires an increase in the height or thickness of the cylinders
modelled. This analysis considered a case of uniformly increasing the thickness. In reality,
the thickness is unlikely to be uniform; instead the shroud, barrel and vessel would have
thicker walls in the areas axially aligned with the core because of the greater shielding
that’s necessary.

The flux tally multiplier for the shroud was increased by 3.15x, and the barrel/vessel by
11x. These factors are drawn from the ratio of the reference flux to the flux result computed
presented in column 3 of Table 3-5. To achieve the required volume/masses, the shroud
thickness was increased from 2.8cm to 3.5cm; Core barrel from 3.8cm to 6 cm and vessel
cylinder from 21.6cm to 29cm. Resultant volumes were 1.57 m3, 5.78 m3, and 36.57 m3 for
the shroud, barrel and vessel cylinder respectively. These volumes agree with [14]. Table
5-9 summarizes the fluxes computed by MCNPX after the changes to flux multipliers and
component thickness. Flux results from Table 5-9 show the shroud to have the lowest
difference from the literature benchmark, with the vessel having the largest discrepancy.
The uncertainty in flux also increases considerably with radius. Overall, the fluxes
computed with the adjustment factors are of the right order of magnitude with acceptable
margins of error.
Table 5-9: Results for the increase in component thickness.

Literature [20] (n/cm2-s) Volumetric Source (n/cm2-s) Difference

Core shroud 5.56E+13 5.35E+13 ± 0.13% 3.9%
Core barrel 3.16E+12 2.87E+12 ± 0.62% 10.1%
Vessel Cylinder 3.71E+10 2.67E+10 ± 4.97% 39%

The volumetric source flux values in Table 5-9 are used as inputs for CINDER to compute
activation in each component. ORIGEN is also used with the same design inputs as
99
CINDER to benchmark the results of the two models against the PNNL study results [55].
Table 5-10 to 5-12 summarize the activity for limiting long-lived and short-lived nuclides.

The immediately apparent difference from Table 5-10 to 5-12 is the lack of data from the
reference for C-14, H-3, Sr-90 and Tc-99. Smith et al. [20], used ORIGEN to do the
activation analysis and seems to have omit these nuclides or they were not activated in
sufficient quantities to warrant inclusion in the results presentation. Generally, the waste
classifications of the components and activities of Ni-59, Nb-94, Co-60 and Ni-63 agree.
Specific activity for nuclides with a half-life shorter than five years, is computed by
CINDER to be 2.1-5.4x higher than ORIGEN’s equivalent model for the reference PWR.

Table 5-10: Core shroud specific activity after 30 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL for 30 CINDER results for 30 ORIGEN results for 30

years of years of irradiation years of irradiation
irradiation (Ci/m3) (Ci/m3)
(Ci/m3) [14]
C-14 2.22E+02 1.19E+02
Ni-59 6.0E+02 6.36E+02 6.36E+02
Nb-94 4.3E+00 5.34E+00 5.46E+00
Tc-99 2.73E-01 2.02E-01
H-3 5.06E+01 1.03E+02
Co-60 7.7E+05 7.88E+05 7.87E+05
Ni-63 9.7E+04 8.69E+04 8.28E+04
Sr-90 4.42E-07
total of nuclides with <5yr 1.3E+06 6.35E+06 6.40E+06
half-life
Shroud classification >CLASS C

100
 Table 5-11: Core Barrel specific activity after 30 years of full power operation for MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL for 30 years of CINDER results 30 ORIGEN results for 30

irradiation (Ci/m3) [14] years of irradiation years of irradiation
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3)
C-14 1.32E+01 7.10E+00
Ni-59 4.10 E+01 4.90E+01 4.92E+01
Nb-94 2.45 E-01 2.62E-01 2.65E-01
Tc-99 1.42E-02 1.08E-02
H-3 5.99E+00 1.21E+01
Co-60 4.49 E+04 4.59E+04 4.57E+04
Ni-63 5.51 E+03 5.45E+03 5.17E+03
Sr-90 9.37E-09
total of nuclides with 7.25E+04 3.89E+05 3.87E+05
<5yr half-life
MXNPX Barrel
>CLASS C
Waste Classification

Table 5-12: Vessel specific activity after 30 years of full power operation for MCNPX model
PWR vs PNNL reference PWR.

PNNL for 30 years of CINDER results for 30 ORIGEN results for 30

irradiation (Ci/m3) [14] years of irradiation years of irradiation
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3)
C-14 8.08E-03 4.25E-03
Ni-59 1.9 E-02 7.25E-03 7.42E-03
Nb-94 2.92E-05 1.35E-05
Tc-99 1.11E-03 8.71E-04
H-3 4.99E-02 1.34E-01
Co-60 4.40 E+01 1.14E+01 1.14E+01
Ni-63 2.2 E+00 7.72E-01 7.35E-01
Sr-90 5.29E-12
total of nuclides with 4.70E+02 1.10E+03 7.44E+02
<5yr half-life
Vessel Waste
CLASS A CLASS B
Classification

Disposal costs for the components after a 30 -year irradiation period is computed with the
limits on radioactivity charges applied (like Chapter 3). Figure 5-1 demonstrates the cost
comparisons for the core shroud, core barrel and vessel cylinder, respectively.
Each component is compared to the PNNL benchmark, and results from Chapter 3 to show
how the flux and thickness increases have influenced disposal cost outcomes.

The core shroud’s disposal costs are $14.25 million for both models after 30 years of
operation. The cost is unchanged after a 10-year decay period due to sustained high

101
activity. Core barrel disposal costs are computed to be $14.75 million for the CINDER
model. This is identical to the disposal costs computed for the reference PWR in [26].
Similar to the shroud, a 10-year decay period does not change disposal costs. The vessel
cylinder’s disposal costs were computed to be $15.56 million after 30 years of operation;
they drop to $0.87 million after a 10-year decay period. The immediate disposal cost after
30 years is $3.1 million higher than the benchmark vessel cylinder’s disposal costs. This
is related to the higher waste classification of the vessel at 30 years of operation. Despite
all other nuclides of interest falling within class A limits, nuclides with a half-life less than
5 years have a specific activity that is higher than the class A limit of 700 Ci/m3. This make
the vessel cylinder class B. Class B/C waste have waste volume charges which are 10 times
those of Class A waste, hence the additional $3 million attributed to waste charges. Plots
demonstrating the activation changes over time are included in Appendix C.

Figure 5-1: Comparing CINDER and PNNL ORIGEN model disposal costs for PWR components from
the after 30 years of operation. CINDER 10-year decay period costs are also shown. Top left: Core
Shroud; Top right: Core Barrel; Bottom: Vessel Cylinder. Each plot compares the PNNL result with the
PWR model results from Chapter 3, and higher flux and thickness PWR cases for 30 years of operation
and disposal after 10 years of safe storage following a 40-year operating lifetime.

102
From the CINDER calculations, total specific activity for the core shroud, barrel and vessel
cylinder was 7.23E+06 Ci/m3 4.40E+05 Ci/m3, and 1.11E+03 Ci/m3 respectively. This is
a multiple of 3.37x, 3.56x and 2.14x higher than that reported by [14] for each respective
component. From Table 5-10 to 5-12, it is clear that CINDER computed significantly
higher activity than PNNL’s ORIGEN model for nuclides with a half-life shorter than five
years. These very short-lived nuclides are the main source of discrepancy in determining
the overall component activity. ORIGEN models from [55] agree with CINDER except the
activity of very short-lived nuclides in the vessel cylinder. In this case, CINDER’s results
are 48% higher than those of ORIGEN. It is unclear why the results in [14] (Appendix B)
omit data for C-14, Nb-94, Tc-99 and H-3 as the models in [55] are able to produce data
from these nuclides. Further work in this area should seek to investigate the source of
discrepancy between models in this study and the PNNL models.

5.4 MSR base case disposal cost sensitivity to PWR activation

and handling charge limits.

This section focuses on computing the disposal costs of the MSR’s core can and vessel
cylinder assuming a limit on the radioactivity and handling charges. The core can is
subjected to the charge limits imposed on the PWR shroud. The vessel cylinder is simply
subjected to the limits of the PWR vessel cylinder. The sensitivity study is conducted for
cases where the core can and vessel are composed of either SS316 or Hastelloy N.
Activation data is identical to that discussed in Chapter 4, with the only change being the
charge limits imposed. Figure 5-2 and 5-3 summarize the results of the sensitivity analysis.

Costs of disposing the core can and vessel are the same regardless of material for a 5 to 10-
year operating period. The core can’s disposal costs in this period are $13.9 million and
the vessel $10.56 million. Hastelloy N components disposal costs remain the same after 20
years of decay following shutdown. This is due to the activity remaining above the
radioactivity limit that is charged for the core can and vessel cylinder. After a 20-year
decay period, the SS316 disposal costs for the core can and vessel reduce by 38.8% and

103
51.7% respectively. Chapter 4 shows the activity for SS316 and Hastelloy N components
is driven by Ni-63 and Co-60 after 20-years. Hastelloy N has 3-4x the nickel and cobalt
content of SS316 therefore its activity remains higher, resulting in higher disposal costs.
The disposal costs are summarized in Table 5-13.

Figure 5-2: Disposal cost summary for Hastelloy N MSR components. Left: Core can; Right: Vessel
Cylinder. Note that the 20yr SAFSTOR refers to the disposal cost after a 20-year decay period following
10 years of operation.

Figure 5-3: Disposal cost summary for SS316 MSR components. Left: Core can; Right: Vessel Cylinder.
Note that the 20yr SAFSTOR refers to the disposal cost after a 20-year decay period following 10 years
of operation.

Table 5-13: Summary of disposal costs for MSR components with PWR activation charge limits
imposed.

5 to 10-year operation disposal cost Disposal cost after 20-year decay period
from 10-year operating period
Hastelloy N SS316 Hastelloy N SS316
Core Can $13.9 million $13.9 million $8.5 million
Vessel Cylinder $10.56 million $10.5 million $5.1 million

Imposing radioactivity charge limits on the MSR vessel result in similar costs to the PWR’s
major primary components. Practically, disposal of MSR components would require such
cost limits on single components as scaling the costs based on total activity values would
result in prohibitively high disposal costs that would make financing all decommissioning
activities very difficult.

104
6. Conclusion and Future Work

The work presented in this thesis focused on characterizing the disposal costs of major
reactor components at a Texas LLW facility. First an analytical approach was adopted to
investigate the methodology used in computing the disposal costs for components in the
Trojan NPP. This exercise showed that the amount charged for radioactivity of some
components was a fraction of the true total cost that could be theoretically billed. A charge
limits/caps was imposed on the amount of activity billed. This was a major insight that was
applied in the numerical analysis that followed for a simple conceptual PWR design using
MCNPX. The analytical approach applied simple mathematical relations for computing
activity that proved to be reasonable in quantifying the activity of major limiting long and
short-lived nuclides and component disposal cost. This in turn resulted in the correct
classification of waste as outlined by the PNNL studies on Trojan NPP. These analytical
equations also applied to quantifying activity for MSR vessels and internals and ultimately
classifying the waste.

The numerical analysis had two parts: PWR analysis and MSR analysis. Generally, the
analysis described the design process for each type of reactor. The PWR was modelled
after the Trojan NPP to benchmark against the results from [14] and [20]. Results were
generally in agreement with the benchmark’s waste classifications. The main discrepancies
stemmed from the activity of specific nuclides. This is due to the lower flux levels modelled
in the MCNPX design relative to what is reported by [20]. The core shroud’s activation
results were most aligned with those of the reference; errors increased with radial distance
from the core. MSR analysis focused on analyzing activity assuming two cases:
components made of Hastelloy N and SS316. Generally, the waste was class C or greater
than Class C. A similar conclusion was reached by the analytical approach although it
tended to overestimate activity. Graphite reflectors in the core were also modelled to assess
impact of irradiation on their activity. They ended up being class C waste due to high C-
14 activation.

105
Sensitivity analysis involved the testing for the impact of removing impurities from
component materials. In all cases explored, the overall activity was reduced. In the PWR
cases, disposal costs did not reduce proportionally to the activity reductions. Immediate
disposal costs were essentially unaffected by reductions in activity as a result of removing
impurities however savings were realized for the barrel after a ten-year decay period. MSR
disposal costs were highly sensitive to cobalt impurities, therefore resulting in potential
savings above $100 million for major components.

The results from Chapter 3 and 4 can be put in terms $/MWh ranging between costs for
immediate dismantlement and a decay period. The PWR is assumed to sustain up to 40
years of operation and a 10-year decay period. MSR has an operating period of 5-10 years
and a 20-year decay period. A 33% efficiency is assumed for the PWR with thermal output
of 3500MWth and 90% capacity factor. MSR is assumed to produce 200 MWe, and has a
70% capacity factor. The discount rate is 7%. Upper limits on levelized costs are for the
immediate dismantlement following the shortest operating period considered. For the MSR
this is 5 years. The lower limit considers the levelized cost of disposal at the end of the
decay period. Cumulative energy generation assumed 10 years of operation for MSR
component disposal after a 20-year decay period. Table 6-1 summarizes these calculations
based on equation 36.
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐) 40 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = ; 𝑁𝑁 = (36)
∑𝑁𝑁
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶×𝑃𝑃×𝜂𝜂
𝑡𝑡=1 (1+𝑟𝑟)𝑡𝑡 5 − 10 𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀

Here PV(Disposal Cost) is the present value of the disposal cost as computed in Chapter 3,
CF is the capacity factor, P is the thermal power output and 𝜂𝜂 is the cycle efficiency.
Discount rates and time are denoted by r and t respectively.

106
 Table 6-1: Levelized costs of disposal for major reactor components modelled.

MSR without charge limits MSR with charge

limits
Component PWR Hastelloy N SS316 Hastelloy SS316
($/MWh) ($/MWh) ($/MWh) N ($/MWh)
($/MWh)
Core 0.117 6.42-163 1.27-141 1.51-2.76 0.99-2.76
Shroud/Can
Core Barrel 0.071-0.107
Vessel 0.003-0.029 2.14-54.4 0.597-64 1.23-2.10 0.59-2.10
Graphite 0.45-0.77
reflectors 1
Total 0.19-0.25 9.01-218.2 2.32-205.8 3.19-5.63 2.03-5.63

The NRC forecasts the core shroud, barrel and vessel cylinder would constitute 28% of the
total PWR disposal costs at the Texas LLW facility neglecting surcharges for non-affiliated
plant disposal [26]. Assuming this ratio of 28%, the multiplying factor for converting sum
of levelized costs of disposing the shroud, barrel and vessel to total PWR disposal costs is
3.57. From this, a rough estimate of the range of the levelized cost to dispose all PWR
components is computed to be $0.68-0.9/MWh. This is under the commonly referenced
$1/MWh figure for payments into decommissioning funds. Applying the same logic for
estimating the levelized cost of disposal for all MSR components results in a range of
$8.27-$779/MWh without limits or $7.25-$20.10/MWh with charge limits. MSRs will
incur higher costs for cleanup and decontamination of components due to the impact of the
fuel salt as demonstrated by the MSRE experience. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect
total disposal costs to be considerably higher than those of a PWR. Reducing the levelized
costs of disposal can be achieved by operational improvements such as increasing capacity
factors, or pursuing power up-rates, which increases revenue and reduced the levelized cost
of capital and operation. Power uprates would have effects of material integrity such as
accelerating corrosion in a higher temperature environment. Optimization of operations
would result in efficiency gains that reduce the levelized cost of disposal.

1
Graphite reflectors were not subjected to charge limits because there was no equivalent referenceable limit
from the PWR case study.

107
Chapter 1 discussed the challenges facing the nuclear industry in dealing with
decommissioning as more plants are retired. The NRCs methodology placed disposal as a
much higher proportion of decommissioning costs (38-61% of total) than is suggested by
empirical evidence (14.5-18.8%) [12]. This discrepancy warrants a thorough review of the
decommissioning process. Actual decommissioning outcomes suggest the industry ought
to focus on containing project management costs throughout the process. Most
decommissioning projects pursue a mixed strategy that includes some form of safe storage
for several years before completing decommissioning. This enables activity to reduce
substantially, thus resulting in much lower costs of disposal than is published by the NRC
and is reported in this study for immediate disposal. Safe storage of up to 60 years is
permitted by the NRC and thus could be leveraged to optimize for the lowest
decommissioning costs.

Future work in the area of waste disposal should seek to expand the work of this thesis to
include the entire plant boundary. Particular emphasis should be placed on the zone within
the containment to add more detail to the understanding of disposal costs and compare the
outcomes to results from the PNNL’s work. The impact of safe storage of up to 60 years
should also be modelled to investigate the least cost disposal strategy while considering
storage O&M costs. Similarly, expansive work should be done for advanced reactors such
as MSRs and High Temperature Gas Reactors. To advance decommissioning cost
modelling more generally, the insights on labor costs from the work of researchers such as
Stewart & Shirvan [56], could be applied to modelling the project management aspect of
decommissioning. The empirical evidence suggests this is a key cost driver that would
benefit by focusing on more methodical planning of the process.

108
References

[1] Electric Power Research Institute, "Connecticut Yankee Decommissioning

Experience Experience Report," Electric Power Research Institute, Washington
DC, 2006.
[2] Nuclear Energy Agency, "Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants,"
2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14910/costs-of-
decommissioning-nuclear-power-plants?details=true. [Accessed April 2023].
[3] Energy Information Administration, "Decommissioning nuclear reactors is a long-
term and costly process," 17 November 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33792. [Accessed April 2023].
[4] Energy Information Administration, "U.S. nuclear industry," Energy Information
Administration, 18 April 2022. [Online]. Available:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php. [Accessed
April 2023].
[5] R. Lordan-Perret, R. D. Sloan and R. Rosner, "Decommissioning the U.S. nuclear
fleet: Financial assurance, corporate structures, and bankruptcy," Energy Policy,
vol. 154, no. 112280, July 2021.
[6] Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "50.75 Reporting and recordkeeping for
decommissioning planning.," NRC, [Online]. Available:
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0075.html.
[Accessed April 2023].
[7] S. Short and M. Toyooka, "Report on Waste Burial Charges," NRC, 2023.

[8] St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, "Producer Price Index by Commodity: Fuels and
Related Products and Power: Industrial Electric Power," St. Louis Federal
Reserve Bank, 2023. [Online]. Available:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU0543#:~:text=Producer%20Price%20Index

109
 %20by%20Commodity%3A%20Fuels%20and,Related%20Products%20and%20
Power%3A%20Industrial%20Electric%20Power%20%28WPU0543%29.
[Accessed April 2023].
[9] P. Eash-Gates, M. M. Klemun, G. Kavlak, J. McNerney, J. Buongiorno and J. E.
Trancik, "Sources of Cost Overrun in Nuclear Power Plant Construction Call for a
New Approach to Engineering Design," Joule, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 2348-2373, 18
November 2020.
[10] American Nuclear Society, "Vogtle project update: Cost likely to top $30 billion,"
NuclearNewswire, 9 May 2022.
[11] American Nuclear Society, "Vogtle-3 connects to grid," NuclearNewswire, 3
April 2023.
[12] S. Short, M. Bierschbach, R. Layton and B. Greenfield, "Assessment of the
Adequacy of the 10 CFR 50.75(c) Minimum Decommissioning Fund Formula,"
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2012.

[13] Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Backgrounder on Decommissioning Nuclear

Power Plants," NRC, [Online]. Available: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html. [Accessed April 2023].
[14] E. Murphy., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference
Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
Richland, 1984.
[15] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, "Merits and
Viability of Different Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Technology Options and the
Waste Aspects of Advanced Nuclear Reactors," The National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2023.
[16] L. M. Krall, A. M. Macfarlane and R. C. Ewing, "Nuclear waste from small
modular reactors," Envrionmental Sciences, 31 May 2022.
[17] IAEA, "Assessment and management of ageing of major nuclear power plant
components important to safety: PWR vessel internals," International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, 1999.

110
[18] Flibe Energy, "Status Report- Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor," International
Atomic Energy Agency, 2016.
[19] Terrestrial Energy, "Status Report- Integral Molten Salt Reactor-400,"
International Atomic Energy Agency , 2016.
[20] R. Smith, G. Konzek and W. Kennedy, "Technology, Safety and Costs of
Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," Batelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory, 1978.
[21] J. R. Hayes, J. Gray, A. W. Szmodis and C. A. Orme, "Influence of Chromium
and Molybdenum on the Corrosion of Nickel based alloys," Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, 2005.
[22] High Temp Metals, "ALLOY 800/800AT/800H TECHNICAL DATA," [Online].
Available: https://www.hightempmetals.com/techdata/hitempIncoloy800data.php.
[Accessed March 2023].

[23] M.-C. Kim, S.-G. Park, K.-H. Lee and B.-S. Lee, "Comparison on Mechanical
Properties of SA509 Gr3 Cl.1, Cl.2, and Gr.4N Low Alloy Steels for Pressure
Vessels," in Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting,
Pyeongchang, 2014.
[24] INL, "Using SA508/533 for HTGR Vessel Material," Idaho National Laboratory,
Idaho Falls, 2012.
[25] F. Ganda, T. Taiwo and T. Kim, "Report on the Update of Fuel Cycle Cost
Algorithms," Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, 2018.
[26] S. Short and M. Toyooka, "Report on Waste Burial Charges," U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 2021.
[27] Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "S61.55 Waste classification.," May 1989.
[Online]. Available: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/cfr/part061/part061-0055.html. [Accessed December 2021].
[28] MIT, "NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS,"
[Online]. Available: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/earth-atmospheric-and-planetary-
sciences/12-091-trace-element-analysis-of-geological-biological-environmental-

111
 materials-by-neutron-activation-analysis-an-exposure-january-iap-2005/lecture-
notes/session1b.pdf. [Accessed December 2021].
[29] KAERI, "Nuclear Data Center at KAERI," [Online]. Available:
https://atom.kaeri.re.kr/old/ton/index.html. [Accessed January 2022].
[30] International Atomic Energy Agency , "Live Chart of Nuclides," [Online].
Available: https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html.
[Accessed January 2022].
[31] Haynes International, "Hastelloy N alloy," 2020. [Online]. Available:
http://haynesintl.com/docs/default-source/pdfs/new-alloy-brochures/corrosion-
resistant-alloys/brochures/n-brochure.pdf?sfvrsn=18. [Accessed Janurary 2022].
[32] AZO Materials , "Stainless Steel - Grade 316 (UNS S31600)," [Online].
Available: https://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=863. [Accessed
December 2021].

[33] M. Fratoni, D. Shen, G. Ilas and J. Powers, "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment
Benchmark Evaluation," University of California, Berkely and Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
[34] D. Williams, L. Toth and K. Clarno, "Assessment of Candidate Molten Salt
Coolants for the ATHR," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2006.
[35] L. Chapdelaine, "Experimental and Computational Study of Static Solidification
of Molten Fluoride Salts for Reactor Coolant Application," University of
Wisconsin Madison Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics, Madison,
2017.

[36] J. Gomez-Vidal and R. Tirawat, "Corrosion of alloys in a chloride molten salt

(NaCl-LiCl) for solar thermal technologies," Solar Energy Materials & Solar
Cells , no. 157, pp. 234-244, 2016.
[37] G. e. a. Zheng, "Corrosion of 316 stainless steel in high temperature molten
Li2BeF4 (FLiBe) salt," Journal of Nuclear Materials, pp. 143-150, 2015.
[38] I. N. De Candido, "Graphite disposal costs," in ANS Winter conference 2022,
Phoenix, 2022.

112
[39] D. e. a. Holcomb, "Molten Salt Reactor Fundamental Safety Function PIRT,"
Oakridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2021.
[40] ORNL, "RSICC CODE PACKAGE CCC-740," Oakridge National Laboratory,
[Online]. Available: https://www-rsicc.ornl.gov/codes/ccc/ccc7/ccc-740.html.
[Accessed April 2023].

[41] LANL, "MCNP6 User's Manual," Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2014.
[Online]. [Accessed 2022].
[42] LANL, "A manual for CINDER'90 version 07.4 Codes and Data," Los Alamos
National Laboratory, 2007.
[43] N. Wohlmuther and F. Gallmeier, "User Guide for the Gamma Source Perl Script
1.0," Paul Scherrer Institut.
[44] N. E. Todreas and M. S. Kazimi, Nuclear Systems Volume I: Thermal Hydraulic
Fundamentals, CRC Press, 2021.

[45] F. X. Gallmeier and M. Wohlmuther, "ACTIVATION SCRIPT VERSION 1.0

USER GUIDE," Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2008.
[46] P. N. Haubenreich and J. Engel, "EXPERIENCE WITH THE MOLTEN-SALT
REACTOR EXPERIMENT," NUCLEAR APPLICATIONS & TECHNOLOGY,
vol. 8, 1970.
[47] Francis et al, "Vacuum Laser Welding of SA508 steel," Journal of Materials
Processing Tech., 2019.
[48] A. Barbosa Botelho Jr, D. Druisinger and D. Espinosa, "A Review of Nickel,
Copper and Cobalt Recovery by Chelating Ion Exchange Resings from Mining
Processes and Mining Tailings," Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, 2018.
[49] K. K. Sandhi and J. Szpunar, "Analysis of Corrosion of Hastelloy-N, Alloy X750,
SS316 and SS304 in Molten Salt High-Temperature Environment.," Energies,
vol. 14, no. 543, 2021.
[50] C.-Y. Li, X.-B. Xia, J. Cai, Z.-H. Zhang, G.-Q. Zhang, J.-H. Wang and Z.-C.
Qian, "Radiation dose distribution of liquid fueled thorium molten salt reactor,"
Nuclear Science Techniques, vol. 32, no. 22, 2021.

113
[51] U.S. Government Accountability Office, "SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
MANAGEMENT: Outreach Needed to Help Gain Public Acceptance of Federal
Activities That Address Liability," Government Accountability Office,
Washington DC, 2014.
[52] Energy Northwest, "2015 Energy Northwest Annual Report," Energy Northwest,
Richland, 2015.

[53] R. Alvarez, "UPDATE REPORT ON SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

MANAGEMENT AND CLOSURE DATE COST COMPARISON AT THE
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION," Institute for Policy Studies, 2017.
[54] Holtec International, "HI-STORM 100 CASK SYSTEM SAFETY
EVALUATION REPORT," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC.
[55] A. Kudriavtseva, "ORIGEN Benchmark models," 2023.

[56] W. Stewart and K. Shirvan, "Capital cost estimation for advanced nuclear power
plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 155, March 2022.
[57] Y. Dai, X. Zheng and P. Ding, "Review on sodium corrosion evolution of nuclear-
grade 316 stainless steel for sodium-cooled fast reactor applications," Nuclear
Engineering and Technology, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 3474-3490, November 2021.

[58] Yang et al, "Corrosion of SiC induced by Hastelloy N alloy and its corrosion
products in LiF-NaF-KF molten salt," Corrosion Science, vol. 109, pp. 62-67,
March 2016.
[59] New England ISO, "Pricing Reports," 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iso-
ne.com/isoexpress/web/reports/pricing. [Accessed April 2023].

114
Appendix A

MCNPX PWR Input file

115
116
117
MCNPX MSR Input files

118
119
120
121
122
123
CINDER Activation script Input file

124
125
126
Appendix B

Trojan NPP component specific activities [14].

NRC waste classification criterion [27]

Long-lived nuclides
Table 1
Radionuclide Ci/m^3 Class A [Ci/m^3] Class C (max) [Ci/m^3]
C-14 8 0.8 8
C-14 in activated metal 80 8 80
Ni-59 in activate metal 220 22 220
Nb-94 in activated metal 0.2 0.02 0.2
Tc-99 3 0.3 3
I-129 0.08 0.008 0.08
Alpha emitting transuranic
nuclides with half-life greater
than 5 years 100 10 100
Pu-241 3500 350 3500
Cm-242 20000 2000 20000

nanocuries/gram
curies/m^3
Short-lived nuclides
Table 2
Ci/m^3
Radionuclide Column 1 (Class A) Column 2 (Class B) Column 3 (Class C)
total of all nuclides with less
than 5yr half life 700 - -
H-3 40 - -
Co-60 700 - -
Ni-63 3.5 70 700
Ni-63 in activated metal 35 700 7000
Sr-90 0.04 150 7000
Cs-137 1 44 4600

no limits established for

radionuclides in class B or C
wastes

NRC PWR Burial costs [26]

128
Appendix C

PWR flux & mass increase sensitivity analysis

Shroud

Barrel

129
Vessel Cylinder

PWR impurity sensitivity analysis

Core shroud sensitivity

130
Core barrel sensitivity

Vessel cylinder sensitivity

131
MSR impurity sensitivity analysis
Graphite sensitivity

Core can sensitivity

Hastelloy N

132
SS316

Vessel cylinder sensitivity

Hastelloy N

133
SS316

Activation for increased flux and thickness MCNPX

PWR Model Activity and for 60 to 80 years of
operation.
Core shroud specific activity after 60 to 80 years of full power operation for modified MCNPX
model PWR vs PNNL study.

PNNL 30 years MCNPX results 60 MCNPX results

of irradiation years of irradiation 80 years of
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) irradiation
(Ci/m3)
C-14 4.38E+02 5.81E+02
Ni-59 6.0E+02 9.66E+02 1.09E+03
Nb-94 4.3E+00 9.15E+00 1.10E+01
Tc-99 4.22E-01 4.82E-01
H-3 9.16E+01 1.04E+02
Co-60 7.7E+05 6.23E+05 5.42E+05
Ni-63 9.7E+04 1.46E+05 1.74E+05
Sr-90 1.43E-06 2.24E-06
total of nuclides with <5yr 1.3E+06 5.92E+06 5.88E+06
half-life
Shroud classification >CLASS C

Disposal cost: $ 14.25 million

134
 Core Barrel specific activity after 60 to 80 years of full power operation for modified MCNPX
model PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL 30 years of MCNPX results 60 years MCNPX results 80 years

irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.63E+01 3.50E+01
Ni-59 4.10 E+01 9.64E+01 1.27E+02
Nb-94 2.45 E-01 5.20E-01 6.90E-01
Tc-99 2.80E-02 3.70E-02
H-3 9.35E+00 1.25E+01
Co-60 4.49 E+04 4.61E+04 4.58E+04
Ni-63 5.51 E+03 9.84E+03 1.23E+04
Sr-90 3.07E-08 4.83E-08
total of nuclides with 7.25E+04 3.88E+05 3.88E+05
<5yr half-life
Barrel Waste >CLASS C
Classification

Disposal cost: $ 14.75 million

Vessel specific activity after 60 to 80 years of full power operation for modified MCNPX model
PWR vs reference PWR.

PNNL 30 years of MCNPX results 60 years MCNPX results 80 years

irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3)
C-14 1.61E-02 2.15E-02
Ni-59 1.9 E-02 1.45E-02 1.93E-02
Nb-94 5.83E-05 7.77E-05
Tc-99 2.21E-03 2.95E-03
H-3 5.92E-02 6.07E-02
Co-60 4.40 E+01 1.16E+01 1.16E+01
Ni-63 2.2 E+00 1.40E+00 1.75E+00
Sr-90 1.75E-11 2.77E-11
total of nuclides with 4.70E+02 1.10E+03 1.10E+03
<5yr half-life
Vessel Waste CLASS A CLASS B
Classification

Disposal cost: $ 15.56 million

135
Appendix D

Chapter 3 ORIGEN Results [55]

ORIGEN Model for Core shroud.
30 years of irradiation 40 years of irradiation 10-year decay post
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
C-14 4.40E+01 5.86E+01 5.85E+01
Ni-59 2.86E+02 3.67E+02 3.67E+02
Nb-94 2.00E+00 2.62E+00 2.62E+00
Tc-99 7.97E-02 1.03E-01 1.03E-01
H-3 3.18E+01 4.22E+01 2.41E+01
Co-60 3.14E+05 3.09E+05 8.29E+04
Ni-63 3.23E+04 4.12E+04 3.85E+04
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 2.40E+06 2.39E+06 2.98E+04

ORIGEN Model for Core barrel.

30 years of irradiation 40 years of irradiation 10-year decay post

(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
C-14 8.85E-01 1.18E+00 1.18E+00
Ni-59 6.32E+00 8.42E+00 8.42E+00
Nb-94 2.71E-02 3.61E-02 3.61E-02
Tc-99 1.05E-03 1.40E-03 1.40E-03
H-3 1.14E+00 1.29E+00 7.35E-01
Co-60 5.37E+03 5.44E+03 1.46E+03
Ni-63 6.58E+02 8.49E+02 7.93E+02
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 4.76E+04 4.76E+04 6.20E+02

ORIGEN Model for Vessel Cylinder.

30 years of irradiation 40 years of irradiation 10-year decay post

(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
C-14 5.48E-04 7.31E-04 7.30E-04
Ni-59 9.13E-04 1.22E-03 1.22E-03
Nb-94 2.19E-06 2.93E-06 2.92E-06
Tc-99 1.07E-04 1.43E-04 1.43E-04
H-3 2.15E-02 2.36E-02 1.35E-02
Co-60 1.49E+00 1.51E+00 4.05E-01
Ni-63 9.28E-02 1.20E-01 1.12E-01
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.03E+02 1.03E+02 3.23E+00

136
Chapter 4 ORIGEN Results [55]

ORIGEN model for Graphite Reflectors.

7 years of irradiation 10 years of irradiation 20-year decay post

(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.56E+00 3.65E+00 3.64E+00
H-3 1.25E-02 1.75E-02 5.67E-03
Co-60 4.37E-07 1.72E-06 1.24E-07
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.20E+01 1.14E+01 1.46E-02

Hastelloy N cases
ORIGEN model for Hastelloy N Core Can.
7 years of irradiation 10 years of irradiation 20-year decay post
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
Ni-59 6.15E+02 8.71E+02 8.71E+02
Tc-99 5.41E-01 7.72E-01 7.72E-01
H-3 1.48E-01 2.39E-01 7.76E-02
Co-60 1.41E+06 1.71E+06 1.23E+05
Ni-63 7.01E+04 9.88E+04 8.62E+04
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 2.01E+06 2.00E+06 1.76E+02

ORIGEN model for Hastelloy N Vessel Cylinder.

7 years of irradiation 10 years of irradiation 20-year decay post
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
Ni-59 4.93E+01 7.04E+01 7.04E+01
Tc-99 6.56E-02 9.37E-02 9.38E-02
H-3 9.17E-03 1.51E-02 4.90E-03
Co-60 1.14E+05 1.39E+05 1.00E+04
Ni-63 5.56E+03 7.86E+03 6.86E+03
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.64E+05 1.64E+05 1.38E+01

137
SS316 cases
ORIGEN model for Hastelloy N Core Can.

7 years of irradiation 10 years of 20-year decay post

(Ci/m3) irradiation (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.09E+01 2.98E+01 2.98E+01
Ni-59 1.12E+02 1.58E+02 1.58E+02
Tc-99 8.33E-02 1.19E-01 1.19E-01
H-3 3.89E-02 5.89E-02 1.91E-02
Co-60 2.55E+05 3.09E+05 2.23E+04
Ni-63 1.27E+04 1.79E+04 1.56E+04
total of nuclides with <5yr
half-life 2.58E+06 2.62E+06 2.44E+03

ORIGEN model for Hastelloy N Vessel Cylinder.

7 years of irradiation 10 years of 20-year decay post

(Ci/m3) irradiation (Ci/m3) shutdown (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.30E+00 3.28E+00 3.27E+00
Ni-59 1.25E+01 1.79E+01 1.79E+01
Tc-99 1.24E-02 1.76E-02 1.77E-02
H-3 6.64E-03 9.55E-03 3.10E-03
Co-60 2.87E+04 3.49E+04 2.52E+03
Ni-63 1.41E+03 2.00E+03 1.74E+03
total of nuclides with <5yr
half-life 2.88E+05 2.92E+05 2.69E+02

Chapter 4 MCNPX MSR Model Activity and Disposal

Costs for 20-year decay period following 5 and 7-year
operating lifetime.
Graphite reflector activity for a 20-year decay period assuming shutdown after 5 or 7 years of
operation.

20-year decay post shutdown for an 20-year decay post shutdown for an
operating period of 5 years (Ci/m3) operating period of 7 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.04E+00 4.25E+00
H-3 1.88E-03 2.62E-03
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.11E-08 1.28E-08
Classification CLASS C

138
Hastelloy N core can activity for a 20-year decay period assuming shutdown after 5 or 7 years of
operation.

20-year decay post shutdown for an 20-year decay post shutdown for an
operating period of 5 years (Ci/m3) operating period of 7 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 4.15E-20 8.12E-20
Ni-59 4.45E+02 6.20E+02
Nb-94 3.41E-05 4.78E-05
Tc-99 4.23E-01 5.92E-01
H-3 8.77E-04 1.22E-03
Co-60 8.24E+04 1.03E+05
Ni-63 4.55E+04 6.31E+04
SI-90 1.64E-11 2.28E-11
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.24E+02 1.43E+02
Classification >CLASS C

SS316 core can activity for a 20-year decay period assuming shutdown after 5 or 7 years of
operation.

20-year decay post shutdown for an 20-year decay post shutdown for an
operating period of 5 years (Ci/m3) operating period of 7 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.92E+01 4.09E+01
Ni-59 7.99E+01 1.11E+02
Nb-94 4.73E-06 6.61E-06
Tc-99 6.54E-02 9.16E-02
H-3 3.22E-03 4.45E-03
Co-60 1.49E+04 1.85E+04
Ni-63 8.61E+03 1.19E+04
SI-90 2.57E-12 3.57E-12
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.80E+03 2.07E+03
Classification >CLASS C

Hastelloy N vessel activity for a 20-year decay period assuming shutdown after 5 or 7 years of
operation.

20-year decay post shutdown for an 20-year decay post shutdown for an
operating period of 5 years (Ci/m3) operating period of 7 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.45E-21 6.77E-21
Ni-59 3.55E+01 4.97E+01
Nb-94 9.80E-06 1.37E-05
Tc-99 5.52E-02 7.73E-02
H-3 2.30E-04 3.07E-04
Co-60 6.66E+03 8.31E+03
Ni-63 3.59E+03 5.00E+03
SI-90 3.78E-13 5.29E-13
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 9.76E+00 1.13E+01
Classification CLASS C

139
 SS316 core can activity for a 20-year decay period assuming shutdown after 5 or 7 years of
operation.

20-year decay post shutdown for an 20-year decay post shutdown for an
operating period of 5 years (Ci/m3) operating period of 7 years (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.21E+00 4.50E+00
Ni-59 8.92E+00 1.25E+01
Nb-94 1.44E-06 2.02E-06
Tc-99 1.02E-02 1.43E-02
H-3 9.00E-04 1.21E-03
Co-60 1.67E+03 2.09E+03
Ni-63 9.52E+02 1.32E+03
SI-90 9.03E-14 1.26E-13
total of nuclides with
<5yr half-life 1.98E+02 2.29E+02
Classification CLASS C

Component disposal cost summary for a 20-year decay period assuming shutdown after 5 or 7
years of operation.

Disposal cost
20-year decay post shutdown for an 20-year decay post shutdown for an
operating period of 5 years operating period of 7 years
Graphite
reflectors $3.8 million
Hastelloy N SS316 Hastelloy N SS316
Core can $33.2 million $6.71 million $43 million $8.59 million
Vessel
cylinder $11.16 million $3.27 million $14.4 million $4.14 million

140
MCNPX PWR Model Activity and Disposal Costs for
60 to 80 years of operation.
Core shroud specific activity after 60 to 80 years of full power operation for MCNPX model PWR
vs PNNL study.

PNNL 30 years MCNPX results 60 MCNPX results

of irradiation years of irradiation 80 years of
(Ci/m3) (Ci/m3) irradiation
(Ci/m3)
C-14 1.63E+02 2.16E+02
Ni-59 6.0E+02 5.11E+02 6.36E+02
Nb-94 4.3E+00 3.72E+00 4.79E+00
Tc-99 1.93E-01 2.42E-01
H-3 3.04E+01 3.68E+01
Co-60 7.7E+05 2.90E+05 2.75E+05
Ni-63 9.7E+04 5.97E+04 7.33E+04
Sr-90 1.65E-07 2.59E-07
total of nuclides with <5yr 1.3E+06 2.33E+06 2.32E+06
half-life
Shroud classification >CLASS C
Disposal cost: $ 14.14 million
Core Barrel specific activity after 60 to 80 years of full power operation for MCNPX model PWR
vs reference PWR.

PNNL 30 years of MCNPX results 60 years MCNPX results 80 years

irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3)
C-14 3.28E+00 4.37E+00
Ni-59 4.10 E+01 1.25E+01 1.67E+01
Nb-94 2.45 E-01 5.41E-02 7.21E-02
Tc-99 2.72E-03 3.62E-03
H-3 7.40E-01 8.21E-01
Co-60 4.49 E+04 5.47E+03 5.47E+03
Ni-63 5.51 E+03 1.26E+03 1.58E+03
Sr-90 4.09E-10 6.45E-10
total of nuclides with 7.25E+04 4.79E+04 4.79E+04
<5yr half-life
MXNPX Barrel Waste >CLASS C CLASS C CLASS C
Classification

Disposal cost: $ 12.98 million

141
 Vessel specific activity after 60 to 80 years of full power operation for MCNPX model PWR vs
reference PWR.

PNNL 30 years of MCNPX results 60 years MCNPX results 80 years

irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3) of irradiation (Ci/m3)
C-14 2.08E-03 2.77E-03
Ni-59 1.9 E-02 1.79E-03 2.38E-03
Nb-94 9.55E-06 1.27E-05
Tc-99 2.69E-04 3.58E-04
H-3 9.60E-03 9.83E-03
Co-60 4.40 E+01 1.52E+00 1.52E+00
Ni-63 2.2 E+00 1.78E-01 2.22E-01
Sr-90 4.36E-13 6.91E-13
total of nuclides with 4.70E+02 1.51E+02 1.51E+02
<5yr half-life
MXNPX Vessel Waste CLASS A
Classification

Disposal cost: $ 3.57 million

142
Appendix E

MSRE had 1140 coolant channels within a graphite matrix that has dimensions shown in
the figure below. Imperial units are converted to SI for the purposes of the computation
[47].

Single channel cross sectional flow area: 𝐴𝐴𝑐𝑐ℎ = 2.875 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2

Core cross sectional flow area: 𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 = 1140𝐴𝐴𝑐𝑐ℎ = 3277.5𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2
𝜋𝜋 𝜋𝜋
2
MSRE vessel cross sectional area: 𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣 = 𝐷𝐷
4 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣
= 4 (147.32𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐)2 =

17045.64𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2
𝐴𝐴𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
Flow to vessel area ratio: 𝜔𝜔 = = 0.1923
𝐴𝐴𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣

143
Appendix F

Dry cask storage assumptions.

per cask ($2023)

Procurement [52] $ 1,300,000.00
Loading [51] $ 445,000.00
Storage pad [51] $ 400,000.00
O&M (over 20-year period) [52] [53] $ 1,277,777.78
Total $ 3,422,777.78

144