Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Krahn, Steven L.

Publications and source records attributed to Krahn, Steven L..

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Progress in Fast Modular Reactor Conceptual Design

The Fast Modular Reactor (FMR) is a 100-MW(thermal) gas-cooled fast reactor being developed by General Atomics Electromagnetic System with the goal of developing a FMR for flexible and dispatchable power to the U.S. electricity market in the mid-2030s. The conceptual design aims to develop and verify simplified design features. These include an inert helium gas coolant, pellet-loaded fuel rods, installations with air cooling as ultimate heat sink, and small and passive heat removal systems. The goal is to ensure the development of a safe, maintainable, cost-effective, and distributed nuclear energy-generating station. The baseline technologies selected to achieve this goal are a helium coolant that is an inert gas with no chemical reaction with structural components, not activated, single phase, enabling high-temperature operation and a high thermal efficiency Brayton cycle; conventional uranium dioxide (UO 2 ) fuel, which is the most widely used and well-known fuel material, capable of high burnup (100 MWd/kg) and a long fuel life; and silicon carbide composite (SiGA®) cladding and internal structures that are chemically inert in the helium environment, exceptionally radiation tolerant, and being derisked by accident tolerant fuel technology development. Further, the reactor was specifically designed with passive safety features, including high-temperature in-core materials and a reactor vessel cooling system consisting of cooling panels of naturally circulating water. The passive safety of the core was confirmed for the depressurized loss-of–forced cooling accident, which showed the peak cladding temperature at ~1600°C during the transient, which is below the current design limit of 1800°C. The conceptual design of the FMR has been conducted for the reactor system, vessel system, generator and turbomachine, instrumentation and control, residual heat removal system, plant service system, and containment, as well as pre-application licensing documents.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

The dynamic nature of risk in DOE facilities in the surveillance and maintenance program–with observations for risk communications

Here, we explore three case studies of facilities at two US Department of Energy (DOE) former nuclear weapons research and production sites—the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Hanford site—whose risk profiles have changed during their long-term management under the DOE's surveillance and maintenance (S&M) program. These case studies provide examples of the challenges faced in communicating to external stakeholders, such as federal and state regulators, local communities surrounding the site, as well as the general public, the circumstances surrounding unexpected events or the emergence/discovery of new risk-important information at historically high-risk sites. We identify common topics of importance from these case studies and suggest a taxonomy for risk communicators to use in informing the dialogues with individuals and organizations that may not be technically oriented or fully informed on the subject matter. The taxonomy is based on technical insights from the quintessential definition of risk known as the Kaplan–Garrick “risk triplet” as well as insights from regulatory guidance documents on risk communication with external stakeholders originally developed for the commercial nuclear power industry.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2022

A structural description of the evolution of stakeholders and risk communication in the Department of Energy's defense nuclear facilities: Historical perspective, major stakeholders, and external events

Regulators and policymakers are routinely challenged with explaining complex concepts concerning risk. Part of the challenge is helping external and internal stakeholders to understand the context behind risk-related information and decisions. Here, this paper will describe the historical evolution of the safety and regulatory framework for an important category in the nuclear industry—defense nuclear facilities owned and operated by the US Department of Energy. In parallel with describing this evolution, three major events which occurred external to the complex of defense nuclear facilities will be summarized, and their impact on the maturation of the Department's safety and regulatory framework will be discussed. Finally, integrated with these two threads of discussion will be a chronicle of the changing set of involved organizations and the expanding set of external stakeholders involved in risk decisions—and therefore, the risk communications ecosystem surrounding defense nuclear facilities. It will be noted that this system was once describable as a classic “iron triangle,” but now has progressed to a complex network of federal and state organizations, numerous congressional committees, and expanding sets of external stakeholders. It is hoped that a comprehensive discussion of the context of risk assessment in the defense nuclear facilities complex—addressing historical insights, organizational evolution, and the maturing structure of regulation—will provide enhanced opportunities for building trust and understanding in this complex environment.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2013

Land and Water Use, CO2 Emissions, and Worker Radiological Exposure Factors for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

The Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy’s Fuel Cycle Technologies program is preparing to evaluate several proposed nuclear fuel cycle options to help guide and prioritize Fuel Cycle Technology research and development. Metrics are being developed to assess performance against nine evaluation criteria that will be used to assess relevant impacts resulting from all phases of the fuel cycle. This report focuses on four specific environmental metrics. • land use • water use • CO2 emissions • radiological Dose to workers Impacts associated with the processes in the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mining through enrichment and deconversion of DUF6 are summarized from FCRD-FCO-2012-000124, Revision 1. Impact estimates are developed within this report for the remaining phases of the nuclear fuel cycle. These phases include fuel fabrication, reactor construction and operations, fuel reprocessing, and storage, transport, and disposal of associated used fuel and radioactive wastes. Impact estimates for each of the phases of the nuclear fuel cycle are given as impact factors normalized per unit process throughput or output. These impact factors can then be re-scaled against the appropriate mass flows to provide estimates for a wide range of potential fuel cycles. A companion report, FCRD-FCO-2013-000213, applies the impact factors to estimate and provide a comparative evaluation of 40 fuel cycles under consideration relative to these four environmental metrics.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Environmental Impacts, Health and Safety Impacts, and Financial Costs of the Front End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

FEFC processes, unlike many of the proposed fuel cycles and technologies under consideration, involve mature operational processes presently in use at a number of facilities worldwide. This report identifies significant impacts resulting from these current FEFC processes and activities. Impacts considered to be significant are those that may be helpful in differentiating between fuel cycle performance and for which the FEFC impact is not negligible relative to those from the remainder of the full fuel cycle. This report: • Defines ‘representative’ processes that typify impacts associated with each step of the FEFC, • Establishes a framework and architecture for rolling up impacts into normalized measures that can be scaled to quantify their contribution to the total impacts associated with various fuel cycles, and • Develops and documents the bases for estimates of the impacts and costs associated with each of the representative FEFC processes.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Building Confidence in LLW Performance Assessments - 13386

The performance assessment process and incorporated input assumptions for four active and one planned DOE disposal sites were analyzed using a systems approach. The sites selected were the Savannah River E-Area Slit and Engineered Trenches, Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility, Idaho Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Oak Ridge Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, and Nevada National Security Site Area 5. Each disposal facility evaluation incorporated three overall system components (1) site characteristics (climate, geology, geochemistry, etc.), (2) waste properties (waste form and package), and (3) engineered barrier designs (cover system, liner system). Site conceptual models were also analyzed to identity the main risk drivers and risk insights controlling performance for each disposal facility. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗