Innovative Reactors

§ Small Modular Reactors

§ Generation IV reactors

§ Micro reactors

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti 1
 SMR: what & why

WHAT WHY
§ Nuclear reactors of limited size (< • To enhance safety level (no-
300 MWe) Fukushima)
§ Simplified design • To limit or to exclude emergency
§ Safety strategy based on Passive planning/evacuation zone
Systems • To reduce construction time &
§ «Modular» design and costs
construction strategy • To enhance quality
§ All nuclear reactor technologies • To limit financial risck
(PWR, BWR, HTGR, LFR, SFR, MSR) • Integration with renewables and
cogeneration

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 DEFENCE-IN-DEPTH

The pillars of Nuclear Safety:

1. DESIGN CHOICES (Prevention)
2. QUALITY (Prevention)
3. PROTECTION SYSTEMS
(Protection, Mitigation)
4. SITE (Prevention, Mitigation)
5. SAFETY AUTHORITY
(Prevention)

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti 3
 SMR: who & when
§ IAEA (2020): 74 SMR designs/projects in the
world
§ 2 SMR already in operation (RUS, CHN), 1 under
construction (ARG)
§ Advanced stage of development: CHN, RUS, USA,
SKOR; EU: «aggressive» program FRA, ITA/ROU-
ALFRED, Est-EU, EC interest and action
§ «Enthusiasm» phase: several start-ups (from
TerraPower-Bill Gates-USA to Newcleo-Stefano
Buono-ITA)
§ Target: deployment within 2030

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Small Modular Reactors

§ Increasing interest all across the MSR

5%
World LMFR
16%
§ Integral PWRs represents the
largest percentage of SMR LWR
concepts 55%

HTR (2/3
24% iPWR)

SMRs projects - World (IAEA)

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMRs - iPWR: not completely a “brand new” concept…

§ Otto Hahn ship (GER)

§ 1968-1979
§ Integral PWR (with Helical Coil SGs),
38MWth
§ B&W-Interatom design

6
91 MWe Consolidated Nuclear
Steam Generator (CNSG)

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Further concepts in 80-90’s

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWR type: (almost) full integration

Integration of ACP
ABV-6M CAREM NuScale SMART Nuward mPower WEC IRIS IMR
components 100

Pressurizer X X X X X X X X X X
Steam
Generators X X X X X X X almost X X

Pumps NC NC NC X NC
CRDMs X X X X X X
SIZE MWth 38 100 160 310 330 500 530 800 1000 1000
MWe 6 25 45 100 100 170 190 225 335 350

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWR type: reactor layout

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMRs: first 10-year Deployment Horizon
SMRs at a very advanced stage: 1 in operation, 1 in commissioning, 1 in advanced stage of
construction, 1 received formal construction approval, 1 received SDA from U.S.NRC

HTR-PM criticality were achieved

at the two reactors on 12 Sept. and CAREM under construction, to start
10 Nov. 2021, to be connected to operation in 2023
the grid by end of 2021

KLT-40S connected to the grid in

Dec. 2019, started commercial
operation at the end of May 2020

ACP100 has started construction in July NuScale received Standard Design

2021 at Changjiang NPP in Hainan Approval issued by U.S.NRC in Sept.
province; taking 60 months 2020, “will be ready to deliver the
first NuScale Power Modules to a
client in 2027”

IAEA/NENP/NPTDS/SM R/M HS/02Nov2020

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMRs: already deployed + under
construction
CAREM ACP-100
KLT-40S HTR-PM

Image Courtesy of CNNC(NPIC/CNPE), China

Basic Design Completed

Integral PWR type SMR
Image Courtesy of CNEA, Argentina Forced circulation
Under Construction • 125 MW(e) / 385 MW(th)
• Core Outlet Temp: 319oC
Integral PWR type SMR • Fuel Enrichment: <4.95% UO2
Naturally circulation • In-vessel control rod drive
mechanisms
• 30 MW(e) / 100 MW(th) • nuclear island underground
• Core Outlet Temp: 326oC • Preliminary safety
• Fuel Enrichment: 3.1% UO2 assessment report (PSAR)
• In-vessel control rod drive finished
mechanisms • An industrial demonstration
• Self-pressurized system plant with one 385 MW(t)
• Pressure suppression unit is planned in Hainan
containment system Province
• IAEA conducted a generic
safety review
Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMRs: Near Term Deployable
NuScale SMART Nuward RITM-200

Image Courtesy of NuScale Power, USA Image Courtesy of KAERI, Republic of

Korea
Under regulatory review Standard design approval (2012)

Integral PWR type SMR Integral PWR type SMR Basic Design Completed Basic Design Completed
Forced circulation Integral PWR type SMR Integral PWR type SMR
Naturally circulation
• 100 MW(e) / 330 MW(th)
Forced circulation Forced circulation
• 60 MW(e) / 200 MW(th) per • Core Outlet Temp: 323oC
module • Fuel Enrichment: <5% UO2 • 170 MW(e) / 500 MW(th) • 53 MW(e) / 165 MW(th)
• Core Outlet Temp: 314oC • Coupling with desalination and • Compact Plate Steam • Fuel enrichment <20%
• Fuel Enrichment: <4.95% UO2 process heat application Generators • Six units already in
• 0.5g peak ground accelerations • Pre-project engineering • Fuel Enrichment: <5% UO2 operation onboard of
• Modules per plant: 12 agreement between Korea and • No boron russian ice-breakers
• Containment vessel immersed Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the • Twin units in the same pool
in reactor pool that provide deployment of SMART in the • Aggressive schedule for
unlimited coping time for core Gulf country deployment (2030)
cooling • Design update (increased • International collaboration
• Multi-purpose Energy use: power and more passive safety
Electricity and process heat features) to be submitted for
applications design approval
Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWRs: main innovations, main challenges

§ Main innovations:
§ Integration of components
§ Compactness of Containment
§ Large adoption of Passive Safety Systems
§ Modularisation & Multiple units

§ Corresponding main technical challenges:

§ Mechanical/Structural (e.g. large RPVs, internal SGs – CRDMs – pumps, etc.)
§ Thermal-Hydraulics
§ Instrumentation
§ Control strategy 13

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Example of iPWR challenges: RPV

14

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWRs: main Thermal-Hydraulics challenges

§ Levels:
§ Components
§ Systems

15

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWRs: main Thermal-Hydraulics challenges

§ Components:
§ Modular Steam Generators: typically non-standard (e.g.Helical-Coil SGs)
ü Once-through, two-phase flow pressure drops, dryout, dynamic instabilities
§ Fuel
ü Critical Heat Flux (if non-standard FA)
§ Pressurizer
ü Fluid-Dynamics (thermal stratification/stresses,…), fluid volume, heaters/sprayers
§ Downcomer
ü Mixing phenomena (temperature, boron)
§ Pumps
ü Fluid-Dynamics, efficiency, cooling (if canned motors)
§ No-pumps
ü fully natural circulation, startup – shutdown procedures
§ Containment 16
ü Typically steel, natural circulation cooling/evaporation

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Example of T/H challenges in components: Containment,
Downcomer

§ Steel Containment, “in-pool” external cooling

CFD
Lumped param.
global Discrepancy
Quantity approach
mean min avg max
min avg max
values
Hull outer
-0.2 +0.7
surface temp. 326.2 325.3 328.6 333.4
[K] +2.1%

Heat flux -14.8 -4.6

[W/m2] 10 686 9 096 10 200 10 970
+2.6% 17
Heat transfer -46.3 -25.7 -
670.7 360.1 517.7 640.5
coeff. [W/m2K] 4.5%

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Example of T/H challenges in components: Containment,
Downcomer

§ Large Downcomer, boron and temperature mixing

New CFD turbulence Experimental investigation

model implementation

Symmetry
plane B

Symmetry
D
plane A VI
Porous
jump
(core inlet)

Design improvement

18

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWRs: main Thermal-Hydraulics challenges

Systems (mainly Passive Safety Systems):

§ EHRS
ü two-phase flow TH, uncondensables, dynamic instabilities

§ Boron Injection
ü mixing

§ Gravity / Nat.Circ. driven injection

ü instabilities, mixing

§ Autom. depressurisation
ü condensation, efficiency, TH/mech. stresses

§ Pressure Suppression / Containment

ü hydro-dynamic loads: condensation/evaporation, chugging, pool swell, efficiency, dynamics/coupling with primary system

19

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: NuScale – a “fully passive” SMR

T/H CHALLENGES
Components:
ü Steam Generators
ü Fuel
ü Pressurizer
Downcomer
Pumps
ü No-pumps
ü Containment

20

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: NuScale – a modular approach from NSSS to BOP

21

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 I&C: iPWRs needs for innovation

§ I&C devices & strategies

– Flow, Temperature, Level, Pressure, Flux/Power
– Some traditional options will not work in iPWRs: geometries involved
& environment
– Re-engineered sensors: different mounting configurations, size
constraints, radiation fields (n, γ)
– New technologies: MEMS,
fiber optic, ultrasonic

FIBER OPTIC sensor (P)

MEMS sensor (P) 22

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 I&C: iPWRs needs for innovation

§ I&C devices & strategies

– Pressure transmitters (+ Temp. sensors): no DP è fiber optic/MEMS
avoid long pressure sensing lines for classical transducers (+ drift
compensation) è penetrations minimised, small size sensors,
sensitivity to high freq pressure fluctuations, reliable in high rad
fields, low maintenance
– Level sensors: no DP (no room & no mild environm. in iPWRs),
acoustic/ultrasonic not viable è distributed fiber optic sensors
– Flow meters: no DP (no prim. piping, smaller flow velocities) è
ultrasonic/fiber optic/MEMS è linear function with flow (accuracy >
√DP especially at low-flow); or indirect (DT across core)

FIBER
OPTIC
sensor (T) IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NP-T-3.19
“I&C Systems for Advanced SMRs”) 23

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 O&M: the IRIS experience

§ Main Goal: Perform maintenance PWR Surveillance Program

Comparison
shutdowns no sooner than each 48
54
months

Proposed
48-Month
Cycle
1831 1858
§ MIT study completed in 1996
investigated extending PWR to 48
month cycle

Month Cycle
Current 18-
§ 3743 maintenance items (on-line and 1206 2537
off-line) identified
§ By recategorizing 625 items from off-
line to on-line, only 54 were left 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
unresolved for PWR Unresolved On-line Off-line

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 O&M: the IRIS experience

§ After MIT study, only 7 items PWR Surveillance Program

(out of 54) unresolved for IRIS Comparison
(iPWR) 54

Proposed
1. Relief valve testing

48-Month
Cycle
2. Steam generator inspection 1831 1858
3. Main condenser cleaning
4. Safety system testing

Month Cycle
Current 18-
5. Main turbine throttle control
6. Rod control system testing 1206 2537
7. Reduced power window
items
§ TVA addressed and 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
resolved or found
resolution programmes for Unresolved On-line Off-line
all 7 items

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Fuel & Fuel Cycles for iPWRs

§ No sensible differences from current GenIII+ PWRs

§ Shorter fuel rods/fuel assemblies (eg 1.5-2 m; need TH testing)
§ Typical enrichment <5% (some designs <20%)
§ Some designs boron-free core (challenge for control rods, burnable poisons;
advantage for RWM & decommissioning)
§ Fuel cycle length: targeting 48 months

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Fuel & Fuel Cycles for iPWRs

KLT-40S CAREM SMART NuScale Nuward RITM-200 ACP-100

Fuel enrichment (%) 18.6 3.1 <5 <5 <5 < 20 <5

Burnup (GWd/t) 45.4 24 < 54 > 30 - - < 52

Refuelling Cycle (m) 30-36 14 30 24 24 Up to 120 24

Other features No onsite 50% core Two- Three- Boron- No -

refuelling refuell. batch batch free core refuelling
Boron- refuell. refuell.
free core scheme scheme

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWRs: SAFETY demonstration needs testing

1 § Fuel + Integrated components

(pumps, steam generators,
CRDMs, pressurizer)

2 § Safety systems (passive, natural

circulation, two-phase flow
systems)

3 § Integral layout: integration of

components + safety systems
(+ containment)

Main goals: i) to test safety effectiveness & performance

ii) to validate codes & models
iii) to train & educate
28

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWRs TH investigation & testing: SET
facilities
FUEL

WEC-SMR
mPower
NuScale
AP1000

CAREM

SMART

Holtec
Fuel
power

Linear
19 8 11 11 12 14 14
[kW/m]
Active
14ft 6.5ft 4.5ft 6.5ft 8ft 8ft 12ft
length

standard-based, reduced lenght, reduced

power density
Ø mixed convection heat transfer (CFD)
“Potential deteriorated turbulent heat transfer (DTHT) when moving from fully turbulent
to mixed convection regime: current correlations for mixed convection could be limited,
suitable (anisotropic) turb. models (wall effects) are needed for CFD calculations”

Wibisono et al. (KAIST), A v2-f model assessment for mixed convection in water-cooled SMR
configuration, ICAPP 2014
29

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWRs TH investigation & testing: SET facilities

FUEL

mPower
NuScale
AP1000

CAREM

SMART

Holtec
Fuel

WEC-
SMR
power

Linear
19 8 11 11 12 14 14
[kW/m]
Active
14ft 6.5ft 4.5ft 6.5ft 8ft 8ft 12ft
length
standard fuel-based, reduced lenght, reduced
power density
Ø mixed convection heat transfer (CFD)
Ø specific CHF and hydraulic testing (fretting)

SMART: CHF test NuScale: CHF

section-freon test section (Stern
(FTHEL facility) Labs)
30

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWRs TH investigation & testing: SET facilities

FUEL

mPower
NuScale
AP1000

CAREM

SMART

Holtec
Fuel

WEC-
SMR
power

Linear
19 8 11 11 12 14 14
[kW/m]
Active
14ft 6.5ft 4.5ft 6.5ft 8ft 8ft 12ft
length

“Grid-to-rod fretting wear test (one of the

major failure mechanisms for PWR fuel): wear
scars identification”

M.E. Conner et al., Fuel Assembly

Hydraulic Testing for Westinghouse Small WEC: VIPRE
Modular Reactor, ICAPP 2014 hydraulic test
loop 31

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR - iPWRs: innovation on Safety

§ No large piping connected to the Reactor Pressure Vessel: No Large-LOCA

§ Internal Pumps/Pumps directly connected to the RPV (canned motor pumps): No leakage/reduced
probability

§ Internal CRDMs: No Rod-Ejection accident

§ Wide use of Passive Safety Systems

32

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR - iPWRs: innovation on Safety

Typical passive safety systems adopted in iPWRs:

§ Core Cooling Systems: water injection by gravity
§ Reactor Cavity Flooding System: support in-vessel core retention in severe accident scenarios
§ Diverse Shutdown System: boronated water injection by gravity
§ Containment Cooling System (steel containment): steam condensation by external water/air

33

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Similarities in SMR - iPWRs
Passive Safety Systems: ECCS / DHRS
Passive Residual
Heat Removal
System

Passive Heat
Passive Residual
Removal System
Heat Removal
System

34

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Similarities in SMRs (iPWRs)
Passive Safety Systems: compact Containment
CAREM: Pressure Suppression-BWR type

35

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: capability to survive to Fukushima-like scenarios

36

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Small
Containment
Long
Emergency
Passive
term
automatic
emergency
cooling
boration
pressure
depressurization
system
heat
tanks
suppression
removal
(LTCS)
(EBTs) system
with
system
direct
(EHRS)
(ADS)
(PSS)
vessel injection (DVI)
iPWR example: IRIS - Safety
systems
IRIS - Schematic of Engineered Safeguards Features Steam
Vent

ADS EHRS
EHRS
Heat Exchanger Refueling Water Storage
Tank (1 of 1)

PSS ADS/PORV Safety Safety

(1 of 1) Valve Valve

EBT
Main Steam Line (1 of 4)
Integral RCP Isolation Valves
Reactor (1 of 8)
P/H P/H
Vessel

SG Steam Lines
(2 of 8)
Emergency Heat Removal
EBT
(1 0f 2) System (EHRS)
SG
Make 1 of 4 Subsystems
Steam Generator
up
(1 of 8)
Suppression Tank
Pool (1 0f 6)
FO FO
AUX. T.B.
DVI BLDG.
SG Feed
Water Lines
(2 of 8)

Suppression
Pool Gas FO FO
Long Term Core Makeup
Space Main Feed Line (1 of 4)
from RV Cavity
(1 of 2) Isolation Valves

P/H P/H

RV Cavity

LTCS Start Up FeedWater

37

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: IRIS - SBLOCA safety strategy

§ High pressure suppression containment + primary vessel + passive safety systems

coupling:

38

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 The IRIS experience: Safety-by-Design™ implementation
IRIS Design Condition IV Design EEffffeecctt oonn CCoonnddiittiioonn IIVV EEvveenntt
Safety Implication Accidents Affected bbyy IIRRIISS SSaaffeettyy--bbyy--DDeessiiggnn
Characteristic Basis Events
No large primary piping • Large break Loss of Coolant Large break LOCA Eliminated
Integral layout
Accidents (LOCAs)
Increased water inventory • Other LOCAs
Increased natural circulation • Decrease in heat removal
Large, tall vessel various events
Accommodates internal Control Rod • Control rod ejection, head Spectrum of control rod Eliminated
Drive Mechanisms (CRDMs) penetrations failure ejection accidents
Depressurizes primary system by • LOCAs
condensation and not by loss of mass
Effective heat removal by Steam • LOCAs
Heat removal from inside
Generators (SG)/Emergency High • All events for which effective
the vessel
Removal System (EHRS) cooldown is required
• Anticipated Transients
Without Screen (ATWS)
Reduced size, higher Reduced driving force through primary • LOCAs
design pressure opening
containment
Decreased importance of single pump • Locked rotor, shaft seizure/ Reactor coolant pump Eliminated
Multiple, integral, failure break shaft break
shaftless coolant pumps No shaft • Loss of Flow Accidents Reactor coolant pump Downgraded
(LOFAs) seizure
No SG safety valves
Primary system cannot over-pressure • Steam generator tube Steam generator tube Downgraded
secondary system rupture rupture
High design pressure Feed/Steam System Piping designed
steam generator system for full Reactor Coolant System (RCS) • Steam line break Steam system piping Downgraded
pressure reduces piping failure • Feed line break failure
probability
Once through steam • Feed line break Feedwater system pipe Downgraded
Limited water inventory break
generators • Steam line break
• Overheating events,
Large pressurizer volume/reactor
Integral pressurizer
power
including feed line break 39
• ATWS
Fuel handling accidents Unaffected

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR – iPWRs: Integral Effect Test (IET) facilities

SMART-ITL (Integral Test Loop) large scale integral test facility

(1:1 in height, 1:1 in P, T; 1:49 in power/volume)

40

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: IRIS - Pressure Vessel Embrittlement practically
eliminated
§ SG modules è Downcomer water thickness (core-vessel): 1.7 m
§ Fast n flux on vessel: ~105 times less than in current PWRs → “Cold vessel”
§ External dose practically avoided
§ No embrittlement, no surveillance
Radial fast neutron flux profile
§ “Aeternal” Vessel
LOOP PWRs
§ Decommissioning
simplified

IRIS

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: IRIS Risk-Informed approach and EPZ
reduction
§ Elimination/strong reduction (NPP fences) of the Emerg. Planning Zone
§ New procedure proposed: Deterministic + Probabilistic analysis to evaluate EPZ size (as a function of
radiation dose limit and NPP safety level)
§ Procedure developed within a IAEA CRP; discussed with NRC

«CAORSO site

IRIS: 1 km

France Evacuation
Zone: 5 km

US Emergency Planning Zone:

10 miles

42

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: IRIS goal-driven design change

§ Numerical and experimental study:

– 120 rubber-steel isolators (High Damping Rubber
Bearings-HDRBs), 1 m diam, 84 mm height
– PGA = 0.3 g, isolation frequency = 0.7 Hz
- lateral displacements < 12 cm
- 25% reduction PGA at vessel supports level, 5
times reduction at roof level
– HDRB experimental campaign performed

~ 1 m gap
50 m
~ 1 m thick

Flood level

Ground level
22 m

21 m

23 m
Horizontal Fail-safe System

56 m 43
HDRBs
Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: IRIS Innovative safety & T/H features supporting Risk-Informed
process (CDF reduction)

§ Iterative approach: Deterministic Safety Analysis and PSA calculation, during design analysis & development

DESIGN/SAFETY PSA Procedure PSA TEAM

ANALYSIS TEAM
Providing IRIS Analysis of system/component
start
system data (initial) reliability

Providing IRIS Identification of high

system data (update) risk scenarios

“Risk-informed Design” procedure

Analysis of Identification of sequences

identified sequences requiring analysis

Incorporation of Recommend changes to

changes in design improve PSA results

44

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 iPWR example: IRIS Innovative safety & T/H features supporting Risk-Informed process
(CDF reduction)

Design development PSA Design development PSA …

1.90E-6

2003 2004 2005 2006

External Events
(seismics)

2.38E-8

45

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Economics of SMRs: not simply a “resize”

§ Features possibly exploited by SMRs to reduce Economy of Scale penalisation/disatvantage:

1. Design simplification (systems, layout, …)
2. Modularisation (shop construction, …)
3. Multi-units on site (costs and systems sharing, …)
4. Learning curve
5. Shorten construction schedule (Interest During Construction, …)
6. Staggered deployment (grid, energy demand, self-financing, …)
7. Other “external” factors (spinning reserve, emergency planning zone, public acceptance, …)

46

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMRs: even in case of a “resize”…

Ostrich egg Chicken egg

1500 – 1800 g/egg 60 – 70 g/egg

15 – 25 €/egg 1 – 2 €/ [6 eggs pack ]
10 – 15 €/Kg 2.5 – 5 €/Kg

• Uncommon suppliers • Standard product

• Few suppliers • Standard suppliers
• Experienced suppliers
One Ostrich egg feeds 15 – 20 people • Many suppliers
…it is not a common family dinner…
47

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMRs: trade off

Economy of scale Economy of multiples

48

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Economy of Multiples vs. Economy of Scale

Multiple units
Ec
on same site on
(S
M omy
Learning co R s of
nc in
process ep le Sca
g
€ to u le
f L nit pe
Modularisation ar sa nali
,
ge m z
Investment € Re e d atio
ac esi n
scalability to gn
€ r)
Design
simplification €
€

300 600 900 1200

49

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR Opportunities

§ Economics
§ Integration with Renewables
§ Cogeneration (e.g. district heating, desalination, ethanol production, H2 production)
§ Reduced Emergency Planning Zone (e.g. IAEA study and TecDoc)
§ Probably, more easy to “re-build” (for experienced Countries) or “new-build” (for
embarking Countries) nuclear management & deployment capabilities

50

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SMR Challenges

Standardization of first-of-a-kind engineering Defining source term for multi-module SMR Plants with
structure, systems and components regards to determining emergency planning zone

Control room staffing for

multi-module SMR Plants
Rational start-up procedure for natural circulation
integral PWR designs

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti 51
 SMR Challenges

§ Technology innovation: probably not the most challenging issue…

§ Licensing: limited experience of Safety Authorities; limited availability of “open
literature” experimental data and “open access” facilities
§ FOAK deployment & financing (who will take the risk? usually the developers’
country)
§ Market development (e.g. standardisation)
§ Duly involvement of embarking Countries ( “intelligent customer” and “product
customisation”)
§ Economics: “Demonstrate promises”, i.e. short time schedule & no-extra budget

52

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Reactor generations

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 GENERATION IV (available at 2030-2035)

An international effort started in 2000

Generation IV main goals:

§ SUSTAINABILITY: meet environm. objectives, promote longterm availability of systems and

effective fuel utilization; minimize and manage nuclear waste and reduce the long-term burden,
improving protection for the public health and the environment
§ ECONOMICS: clear lifecycle cost advantage over other energy sources; level of financial risk
comparable to other energy projects
§ SAFETY AND RELIABILITY: excel in safety and reliability; very low likelihood and degree of
reactor core damage; no need for offsite emergency response
§ NON PROLIFERATION & PHYSICAL PROTECTION: be very unattractive route for diversion or theft
of weapons-usable materials, and provide increased physical protection against acts of terrorism

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Generation IV
§ Rector concepts selected by the Panel of Experts of the Gen IV Programme:
– Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor System GFR
– Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor System LFR
– Molten Salt Reactor System MSR
– Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor System SFR
– Supercritical Water-Cooled Reactor Systems SCWR
– Very-High-Temperature Reactor System VHTR

Systems must:
§ allow significant steps forward, towards the technological targets
§ be able to satisfy electricity, high temp heat, hydrogen production; with an enhanced waste
management system
§ be able to represent shared interests among the member Countries

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 GENERATION IV (2030-2035)

GFR VHTR LFR

MSR SCWR SFR

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Overview of Generation IV
Systems
Neutron Fuel Coolant Power
System Coolant Plant Effici. (%) Applications
Spectrum /Fuel Cycle Temp. (C) (MWe)

Sodium Cooled 50 Electricity,

MOX, Metal
Fast Reactor Fast sodium 500 - 550 300-600 42 Actinide
(SFR) /Closed Recycle
1500
Very High Electricity,
Coated particles
Temperature Thermal helium 900 -1000 250 > 47 H2 Production,
/Open
Reactor (VHTR) Process Heat

Gas-Cooled Electricity,
Carbides helium 200-
Fast Fast 850 45 - 48 H2 Production,
/Closed 1200
Reactor (GFR) Actinide Recycle

Supercritical
Thermal, UOX, MOX
Water Reactor water 510 - 625 1500 Max. 50 Electricity
Fast /Open; Closed
(SCWR)

Lead-Cooled 50-150
Nitrides; MOX Electricity,
Fast Reactor Fast Pb / Pb-Bi 480 - 570 300-600 42 - 44
/Closed H2 Production
(LFR) 1200

Molten Salt Fluoride or Cloride Fluoride or Electricity,

Thermal,
Reactor salts Cloride 700 - 800 1000 Max. 45 H2 Production,
Fast
(MSR) /Closed salts Actinide Recycle
Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Liquid Metal

LEAD-BISMUTH (50-
SODIUM LEAD
50%)
Melting Point 98°C 327.5°C 125°C
Boiling Point 882°C 1740°C 1670°C
Density @500°C 835 kg/m3 10470 kg/m3
Thermal Conductivity @500°C 67.8 W/m K 15.4 W/m K

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti 58
 GEN IV & ADS REACTORS: A KEY STEP FOR
PARTITIONING & TRANSMUTATION (P&T)
§ Radiotoxicity: from 100 000 years to 300 years

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor (SFR)
Characteristics
•Sodium coolant
•550°C Outlet
Temperature
•600 to 1500 MWe
•Metal fuel with
pyroprocessing, or
•MOX fuel with
advanced aqueous
processing

Benefits
• Waste minimization
and efficient use of
uranium resources

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)
Characteristics
•Pb or Pb/Bi coolant
•550°C to 800°C outlet
temperature
•120–400 MWe
•15–30 year core life
•Cartridge core for regional
fuel processing

Benefits
•Proliferation resistance of
long-life cartridge core
•Distributed electricity
generation
•Hydrogen production
•High degree of passive safety

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Lead-Cooled Fast Reactor (LFR)

BREST-OD-300
§ Thermal power, MW: 700
§ Electric power, MW: 300
§ Steam production rate, t/hour: 1480
§ Coolant of the first contour: Lead
§ Average temperature of the lead coolant on
the active zone entry/ exit, °С: 420/540
§ Average temperature of the water coolant on
the steam generator entry/ exit, °С: 340/505
§ Loop number: 4
§ FA number in the active zone: 169
§ Core height, mm: 1100
§ Fuel load, t: 20,6
§ Fuel campaign, years: 5

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Advanced Lead Fast Reactor European Demonstrator ALFRED
(300 MWth)
Economics based on Feasibility based on
simple and compact primary system low-temperature thermal cycle

Temperature Technological
°C Limits
650

600 O2 control +
alluminization
550 ~550
O2 control

500 480
450 outlet
Core
Low O2
inlet
400 activity
400 400 400
Vessel Internals Cladding Material embrittlement
350
327 Lead Freezing

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor (GFR)

Characteristics
•Helium coolant
•850°C outlet
temperature
•Direct gas-turbine cycle
•600 MWth/288 MWe

Benefits
•Waste minimization
and efficient use of
uranium resources

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor (SCWR)
Characteristics
•Water coolant at
supercritical conditions
•550°C outlet
temperature
•1700 MWe
•Simplified balance of
plant
•Thermal or fast spectrum

Benefits
•Efficiency near 45% with
excellent economics

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Very-High-Temperature Reactor (VHTR)
Characteristics
•Helium coolant
•900-950°C outlet temp
•Water-cracking cycle

Benefits
•Hydrogen production
•High degree of passive
safety
•High thermal efficiency
•Process heat applications

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 VHTR – Main features

§ FUEL – Options: carbide plate, carbide pin, nitride particles, oxide pin
§ Plate type concept is attractive, but fabrication difficulties appeared which lead to focus first on the
more classical pin concept.
• a ceramic matrix composite cladding comprising a sandwich of SiC cladding and a thin
internal metallic liner to ensure the leak tightness of the pin;
• a "buffer" , porous carbon structure placed between the pellet and the cladding allowing
higher heat exchanges and moderate clad/pellet mechanical interaction.

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 VHTR – Main features

§ GFR Core Design Concept Using Fuel Pin

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
Characteristics
•Fuel: liquid fluorides of Na,
Zr, U and Pu
•700–800°C outlet
temperature
•1000 MWe
•Low pressure (<0.5 MPa)

Benefits
• ‘Final burn’ transmutation
•Avoids fuel development
•Proliferation resistance
through low fissile material
inventory

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 SAMOFAR project (Euratom)

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti
 Micro Reactors

eVinci™ Micro-Reactor (westinghouse):

§ Transportable energy generator
§ Fully factory built, fueled and assembled
§ Delivers combined heat and power – 1 MWe
to 5 MWe
§ 40-year design life with 3+ year refueling
interval
§ Target less than 30 days onsite installation
§ Autonomous operation
§ Power demand load following capability
§ High reliability and minimal moving parts
§ Near zero Emergency Planning Zone with
small site footprint
§ Green field decommissioning and remediation
Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti 71
 Micro Reactors

Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation

§ https://usnc.com/

Nuclear Engineering Division, Department of Energy, Politecnico di Milano – prof. M.E. Ricotti 72