Need for higher fuel burnup at the Hatch Plant [electronic resource].
- Washington, D.C. : U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, 1996. and Oak Ridge, Tenn. : Distributed by the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Dept. of Energy.
- Physical Description:
- pages 19-27 : digital, PDF file
- Additional Creators:
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and United States. Department of Energy. Office of Scientific and Technical Information
- Restrictions on Access:
- Free-to-read Unrestricted online access
- Hatch is a BWR 4 and has been in operation for some time. The first unit became commercial about 1975. Obtaining higher burnups, or higher average discharge exposures, is nothing new at Hatch. Since we have started, the discharge exposure of the plant has increased. Now, of course, we are not approaching the numbers currently being discussed but, the average discharge exposure has increased from around 20,000 MWD/MTU in the early to mid-1980s to 34,000 MWD/MTU in 1994, I am talking about batch average values. There are also peak bundle and peak rod values. You will have to make the conversions if you think in one way or the other because I am talking in batch averages. During Hatch`s operating history we have had some problems with fuel failure. Higher burnup fuel raises a concern about how much fuel failure you are going to have. Fuel failure is, of course, an economic issue with us. Back in the early 1980s, we had a problem with crud-induced localized corrosion, known as CILC. We have gotten over that, but we had some times when it was up around 27 fuel failures a year. That is not a pleasant time to live through because it is not what you want from an economic viewpoint or any other. We have gotten that down. We have had some fuel failures recently, but they have not been related to fuel burnup or to corrosion. In fact, the number of failures has decreased from the early 1980s to the 90s even though burnup increased during that time. The fuel failures are more debris-related-type failures. In addition to increasing burnups, utilities are actively evaluating or have already incorporated power uprate and longer fuel cycles (e.g., 2-year cycles). The goal is to balance out the higher power density, longer cycles, higher burnup, and to have no leakers. Why do we as an industry want to have higher burnup fuel? That is what I want to tell you a little bit about.
- Published through SciTech Connect., 03/01/1996., "nureg/cp--0149-vol.1", " conf-9510156--vol.1", "TI96009154", 23. water reactor safety information meeting, Bethesda, MD (United States), 23-25 Oct 1995., and Beckhman, J.T.
View MARC record | catkey: 14800665