Publications
Sodium fast reactor gaps analysis of computer codes and models for accident analysis and reactor safety
This report summarizes the results of an expert-opinion elicitation activity designed to qualitatively assess the status and capabilities of currently available computer codes and models for accident analysis and reactor safety calculations of advanced sodium fast reactors, and identify important gaps. The twelve-member panel consisted of representatives from five U.S. National Laboratories (SNL, ANL, INL, ORNL, and BNL), the University of Wisconsin, the KAERI, the JAEA, and the CEA. The major portion of this elicitation activity occurred during a two-day meeting held on Aug. 10-11, 2010 at Argonne National Laboratory. There were two primary objectives of this work: (1) Identify computer codes currently available for SFR accident analysis and reactor safety calculations; and (2) Assess the status and capability of current US computer codes to adequately model the required accident scenarios and associated phenomena, and identify important gaps. During the review, panel members identified over 60 computer codes that are currently available in the international community to perform different aspects of SFR safety analysis for various event scenarios and accident categories. A brief description of each of these codes together with references (when available) is provided. An adaptation of the Predictive Capability Maturity Model (PCMM) for computational modeling and simulation is described for use in this work. The panel's assessment of the available US codes is presented in the form of nine tables, organized into groups of three for each of three risk categories considered: anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs), design basis accidents (DBA), and beyond design basis accidents (BDBA). A set of summary conclusions are drawn from the results obtained. At the highest level, the panel judged that current US code capabilities are adequate for licensing given reasonable margins, but expressed concern that US code development activities had stagnated and that the experienced user-base and the experimental validation base was decaying away quickly.