0
SPECIAL SECTION PAPERS

Fukushima Unit 2 Accident Simulation With MELCOR 2.1

[+] Author and Article Information
Rafael Bocanegra

Departamento de Ingeniería Energética,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
C/José Gutiérrez Abascal, 2,
Madrid 28006, Spain
e-mail: r.bocanegra@upm.es

Valentino Di Marcello

Instituts für Neutronenphysik und
Reaktortechnik (INR),
Karlsruher Institut für Technology,
Karlsruhe 76344, Germany
e-mail: valentino.marcello@kit.edu

Victor H. Sánchez-Espinoza

Instituts für Neutronenphysik und
Reaktortechnik (INR),
Karlsruher Institut für Technology,
Karlsruhe 76344, Germany
e-mail: victor.sanchez@kit.edu

Gonzalo Jiménez

Departamento de Ingeniería Energética,
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid,
Madrid 28006, Spain
e-mail: gonzalo.jimenez@upm.es

Manuscript received September 26, 2017; final manuscript received September 12, 2017; published online March 5, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Asif Arastu.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 4(2), 020908 (Mar 05, 2018) (9 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1114; doi: 10.1115/1.4038062 History: Received September 26, 2016; Revised September 12, 2017

A VTT Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 (1F3) method for estimation of liquids and consequences of releases (MELCOR) model was modified to simulate the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 (1F2) accident. Five simulations were performed using different modeling approaches. The model 1F2 v1 includes only the basic modifications to reproduce the 1F2 accident. The model 1F2 v2 includes the same modifications used in 1F2 v1 plus the wet well (WW) improvement. In the 1F2 v3 model, the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) system logic was modified to avoid the use of tabular functions for the mass flow inlet and outlet. Because of this analysis, it is concluded that there is a strong dependency on parameters that still have many uncertainties, such as the RCIC two-phase flow operation, the alternative water injection, the suppression pool (SP) behavior, the rupture disk behavior and the containment failure modes, which affect the final state of the reactor core.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Government-TEPCO, 2011, “Report of Japanese Government to the IAEA Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety—The Accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations,” Government of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, Report https://japan.kantei.go.jp/kan/topics/201106/iaea_houkokusho_e.html.
INPO, 2011, “Special Report on the Nuclear Accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station,” Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Atlanta, GA, Report No. INPO 11-005 https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Reports-And-Studies/Special-Report-on-the-Nuclear-Accident-at-the-Fuku.
TEPCO, 2011, “Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report (Interim Report),” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, Report. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/111202e14.pdf
TEPCO, 2012, “Fukushima Nuclear Accident Analysis Report,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, Report. http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu12_e/images/120620e0104.pdf
SNL, 2012, “Fukushima Daiichi Accident Study (Status as of April 2012),” Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. SAND2012-6173 https://energypubs.sandia.gov/publications/fukushima-daiichi-accident-study.
EPRI, 2013, “Fukushima Technical Evaluation Phase 1—MAAP5 Analysis,” Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, Report No. 1025750 https://www.epri.com/#/pages/product/1025750/.
Sevón, T. , 2013, “MELCOR Modeling of Fukushima Unit 2 Accident,” 22nd International Conference on Nuclear Energy for New Europe (NENE), Sept. 9–12. http://www.nss.si/proc/nene2013/pdf/NENE2013_404.pdf
Fontanet, J. , López, C. , Fernández, E. , and Herranz, L. E. , 2013, “CIEMAT Contribution to the BSAF Project: Analysis of the Fukushima Unit 2 Accident With MELCOR,” 39th Annual Meeting of Spanish Nuclear Society, Tarragona, Spain, Sept. 25–27. https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:45046301
Takahashi, A. , Marco, P. , Hideo, M. , Hiroaki, S. , and Masanori, N. , 2014, “Accident Analysis of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 by the SAMPSON Severe Accident Code,” ASME Paper No. ICONE22-30670.
Takahashi, A. , Pellegrini, M. , Mizouchi, H. , Suzuki, H. , and Naitoh, M. , 2015, “Simulation Analysis on Accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Unit 2 by SAMPSON Code,” Chiba, Japan, May 17–20, Paper No. ICONE23-1517.
Sevón, T. , 2015, “ A MELCOR Model of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 3 Accident,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 284, pp. 80–90. [CrossRef]
SNL, 2010, “SOARCA Project. Best Modeling Practices,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. NUREG/CR-7008.
SNL, 2012, “State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses Project. Volume 1: Peach Bottom Integrated Analysis,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. NUREG/CR-7110. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr7110/v1/
Herranz, L. E. , Fontanet, J. , Fernández, E. , and López, C. , 2014, “Influence of the Nodalization on Major Thermal-Hydraulic Variables Governing Mark-I Containment Response to an SBO Sequence: Plant Assessment,” Reunión Anual de la Sociedad Nuclear Española, Valencia, Spain.
TEPCO, 2012, “Information Portal for the Fukushima Daiichi Accident Analysis and Decommissioning Activities,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, https://fdada.info/
NRC, 1975, “Reactor Safety Study,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. WASH-1400 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1622/ML16225A002.pdf.
ORNL, 1982, “BWR Containment Failure Analysis During Degraded-Core Accidents,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Report No. CONF-820609--55 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:14724001.
ORNL, 1983, “BWR 4/Mark I Accident Sequences Assessment,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Report No. NUREG/CR-2825 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:14761438.
Hirao, K. , Zama, T. , Goto, M. , Naruse, Y. , Saito, K. , Suzuki, T. , and Sugino, H. , 1993, “ High-Temperature Leak-Characteristics of PCV Hatch Flange Gasket,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 145(3), pp. 375–386. [CrossRef]
TEPCO, 2013, “Plant Specifications of the Unit 2,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, https://fdada.info/en/home2/accident2/specification2/
TEPCO, 2011, “Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Response After the Earthquake,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, Report http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110618e15.pdf.
TEPCO, 2011, “Unit 2 Operator Task Handover Journal,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, Report No. NM-51-4 1F-F1-001.
TEPCO, 2013, “Diagram of RCIC Quencher in Unit 2,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, https://fdada.info/en/home2/accident2/specification2/
Terry Corporation Engineering, 1973, “Water Injection Test. Solid Wheel Turbine,” Terry Corporation Engineering, Tustin, CA.
TEPCO, 2013, “Amount of Water Injection Assumed in MAAP Analysis for Unit-2,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu14_e/images/140806e0115.pdf
TEPCO, 2013, “Examination Into Water Injection by Fire Engines,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/2013/12/index-e.html
Darley & Co., 2011, “PUMP MODEL 2BE10YDN-N Curve No. C544,” Darley & Co., Itasca, IL, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, http://www.darley.com/library/pump-performance-curves
Shaukats, S. , Jackson, J. , and Thatcher, D. , 1991, “Regulatory Analysis for Generic Issue 23: Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Failure,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Report No. NUREG-1401 https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:35066272.
B. O. Group, 1981, “BWR Owner’s Group Evaluation of NUREG-0737 Item K3.25—Effect of Loss of Alternating Current Power on Pump Seals,” B. O. Group.
TEPCO, 2012, “MAAP Code-Based Analysis of the Development of the Events at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, Report https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:47033063.
Cook, D. H. , 1984, “Calculation of Thermal Mixing for the BWR Mark I Containment Pressure Suppression Pool,” 12th Water Reactor Safety Meeting, Gaithersburg, MD, Oct. 22–26, Report No. CONF-8410142--10 http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/16/058/16058304.pdf.
Rand, D. , and Turbine, S. , 2015, “ Motor and Generator D,” Terry Nuclear Drive Turbines, Dresser Rand, Houston, TX.
TEPCO, 2013, “Attachment 2-2. Containment Vessel Pressure Behaviors at Unit-2,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu13_e/images/131213e0114.pdf
TEPCO, 2013, “Attachment 2-1. Reactor Pressure Behaviors at Unit-2,” Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc., Tokyo, Japan, accessed Feb. 9, 2018, 2015, http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu14_e/images/140806e0113.pdf

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

RCIC water injection and steam extraction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Drywell flange leakage model versus containment pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Alternative injection pump performance curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Estimated RCIC turbine efficiency

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Case 1 RPV liquid level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Case 1 cladding temperature in the upper center region of the core

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Case 1 hydrogen production

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Case 1 DW pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Case 0 RPV pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Case 0 RPV liquid level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Case 0 DW pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Case 1 RPV pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Case 0 and case 1 alternative water injection comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Case 2 RPV pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Case 2 alternative water injection rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Case 2 RPV liquid level

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Cladding temperature comparative

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Case 2 hydrogen generated

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Case 2 core state

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Case 2 DW pressure

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In