Increase Fuel Reliability, Performance, and Safety Combined with Lower Fuel Costs by using Accident Tolerant Fuel with Higher Enrichment and Burnup - MTA-NF-004

Administrative Items
Date	12/15/2020
Functional Area Where Benefits Will Be Realized	Nuclear Fuels Operations
Reference Implementation Guidance	2019 NEI TIP Awards – Submittal 85 (ID: 12293390) Accident Tolerant Fuel Technical Update: Valuation 1.0, Gap Analysis, and Valuation 2.0 (EPRI 3002012250) 2018 Feasibility Study and Evaluation for Informing Fuel Enrichment and Burnup Limits (EPRI 3002014625)
Industry SME	EPRI – Robert Daum Contact: NuclearPlantMod@epri.com
Previous Implementation	Please contact EPRI for implementation examples and contacts.
Implementation Enablers	N/A
SWEEP Score	Cost – Level 2 – Implementation and installation of ATF should be between $1 million and $5 million. If a vendor fuel transition is required, costs can increase to above $5 million. Savings – Level 2 – Savings achieved through the reduction of fuel cleanings, fuel costs, and gained efficiencies are generally expected to be between $1 million and $5 million per year. Additional savings can be achieved through cost avoidance of fuel failures. Payback – Level 3 – Based upon estimated cost and savings information, the payback period would typically be within a year of implementation. Licensing Readiness – Level 3 – This technology has already been implemented at nuclear power plants and does not require industry regulatory changes. However, a license amendment will likely be needed for the implementing plant. Technology Readiness – Level 3 – The technology is commercially available and has already been used at nuclear plants. Implementation Proficiency – Level 3 – The implementation of this technology does not require knowledge in implementing digital technologies.
Applicability	All reactor types All geographic regions
Keywords	Fuel Reliability; ATF; Enhanced Accident Tolerant Fuel; Nuclear Fuels; Chromium-coated Cladding; Chromia-doped pellets; Accident Tolerant Fuels
Business Case Analysis Cross-Reference	N/A

Description

Innovative fuel products can be used to improve safety and lower fuel costs at nuclear plants. One such innovation in nuclear fuel is utilizing accident tolerant fuel (ATF) such as chromia‑doped pellets with chromium‑coated Zircaloy cladding. Chromium coating can be applied over the full length of the zirconium cladding using the Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) method, which provides a dense coating that improves corrosion and oxidation resistance compared to uncoated zirconium alloys. This higher resistance to oxidation enhances safety margins and increases coping time for operators to restore power in the event of a beyond‑design‑basis accident. The chromium coating also provides additional margin to fretting‑type failures (e.g., debris fretting), which are leading causes of fuel leaks. ATF concepts also have the potential of increasing maximum enrichment of nuclear fuel, which can allow for higher burnup. This increased burnup can reduce batch sizes and therefore decrease fuel‑related procurement costs. Additionally, the improved performance of the fuel can result in immediate operational benefits, such as the potential for increased revenue from electricity generation due to shorter outage critical path time and faster ramp rates.

Benefits

Benefits Estimate

Level 2 – Savings are expected to be between $1 million and $5 million per year if all benefits are fully realized. If a fuel failure is prevented, there may be an additional $1‑5M in cost avoidance.

Benefits Description

• Reduction of fuel cost through higher burnup and reduction of fuel batch sizes. These can be achieved with the new pellet design and improved fuel performance.
• For higher power density PWRs, reduction of outage costs can be achieved with increased burnup and enrichment resulting in 24‑month operating cycles.
• Increase of efficiency and decrease of man‑hours through quicker ramp rates, saving approximately 3 hours during startup.
• Decrease of fuel failure risk by adding significant margin to fretting‑type failures, which results in large cost avoidance savings.
• Improvement in safety by increasing resistance to fuel leaks, adding extra coping time for operations to achieve safe shutdown, and decreasing hydrogen generation and dose rate in the event of fuel failures.

Costs and Schedule

Cost

Level 2 – Implementation costs are expected to be between $1 million to $5 million if a vendor fuel transition is not required. Otherwise, costs of a fuel transition may be above $5 million.

Schedule

Typical implementation takes approximately one fuel cycle if the utility does not require a vendor fuel transition. Fuel transitions can take 3‑5 years.

Scope Context

Per site (two units)

Risks

Interactions between vendors can incur increased licensing workload and extended schedules, particularly if a vendor fuel transition is required (e.g., for communication of information that must be stripped of proprietary content). One example of a licensing complication is performing a seismic evaluation for a mixed core. These risks can be mitigated through an engaged internal fuel department with strong capabilities to oversee and/or perform the licensing work.

Regulatory uncertainties for licensing ATF with higher enrichment or higher burnup is another risk area. Use of lead test rods/assemblies and other research work are currently ongoing to inform technical and licensing bases and regulatory reviews of industry submittals. Usage of advanced fuel modeling and simulation are also supporting these objectives.