Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Regulatory documents”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Scoping Review of Global Offshore Geologic Carbon Storage Activities

This technical report documents an inventory of offshore geologic carbon storage (GCS) sites globally, with a focus on existing, operating international sites and those characterized in the United States, indicating the type and variety of GCS efforts. Regional overviews provide a high level understanding of basin-scale geology and history of GCS globally. Key aspects documented in this review include geological formation types, depth, play style, project size, timeline, existing infrastructure, environmental challenges, and potential risks. This review also includes a summary of the regulatory frameworks globally, as well as environmental, social, and commercial considerations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utilization of the LMP Methodology in Support of the VTR Conceptual Safety Design Report

The Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) is a fast spectrum test reactor currently being developed in the United States under the direction of the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy. The VTR is utilizing a risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) approach for design support and authorization by the DOE, derived from recent efforts by the US industry led Licensing Modernization Project (LMP). This document contains an overview of the implementation of the LMP approach in support of the VTR Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR). The work reported here is the result of studies supporting a VTR conceptual design, cost, and schedule estimate for DOE-NE to make a decision on procurement. As such, it is preliminary. The VTR RIPB authorization approach utilizes information from the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), coupled with deterministic analyses, to aid in decision-making regarding the identification and categorization of safety basis events (SBEs), the classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and the evaluation of defense-in-depth (DID) adequacy. As part of initial reactor design efforts, a VTR conceptual design PRA was developed to support the RIPB process, which focused on at-power internal events, with scoping analyses for seismic and sodium fire hazards. In addition to supporting numerous design studies, preliminary results from the RIPB approach and the VTR conceptual design PRA were utilized as the basis of the VTR CSDR. The initial identification and categorization of SBEs, SSC classification, and DID evaluation were contained within the CSDR, which was submitted to DOE in 2019 as part of the CD-1 submittal package. Following review, DOE approved the CSDR in April 2020 and the CD-1 package in late 2020. Valuable experience was gained through the implementation of the RIPB approach for design and authorization during the VTR conceptual design phase, which is summarized in this document. To the extent possible, this experience has been shared with the advanced reactor industry, through publications and participation in licensing tabletops, in addition to informing DOE:NE advanced reactor regulatory development efforts. Furthermore, the approval of the CSDR by the DOE as part of CD-1 represents a significant milestone in the use of RIPB approaches for advanced reactor licensing.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A PROVEN APPROACH FOR EFFECTIVE COMPUTER SECURITY SELF-ASSESSMENTS AT NUCLEAR FACILITIES

A proven method for conducting cybersecurity self-assessments at nuclear power plants is now available for international use. This method was originally developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, under the sponsorship of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for use at U.S. nuclear power plants. The “Method,” described in NUREG/CR-6847 “Cyber Security Self-Assessment Method for U.S. Nuclear Power Plants,” was originally a limited release document that was withheld from public disclosure but is now publicly available. The Method provides a systematic, phased, and risk-informed approach to help decision makers and security specialists understand their relative cybersecurity posture. Completed Method assessments may be used to support or validate selection of computer security controls to mitigate cyber threats as well as demonstrate compliance with regulations or statutes enacted by competent authorities. The Method assesses the cybersecurity posture of key systems at a nuclear facility with a focus on protection of design base functions. It considers both physical and digital elements of system vulnerabilities and the resulting potential consequences from exploitation. It is well-suited for addressing blended cyberattacks. A semi-quantitative analytical approach is used in the evaluation of potential vulnerabilities, consequences, and risks and provides a technical basis for the selection of security controls to mitigate cyberattacks. The Method’s application at U.S. nuclear power plants has been very encouraging. The only nuclear plant in the United States that did not have adverse findings during its initial NRC computer security inspection prepared for inspection through the diligent application of this self-assessment method and the implementation of recommendations that came out of that self-assessment. Nuclear facilities around the world might find application of the Method extremely helpful for making cost-effective, risk-based decisions regarding computer security and for preparing to pass computer security inspections by their competent authorities.

Cyber security, Nuclear security, Self-assessment↗
NASA NTRS2015

Second Annual Transformative Vertical Flight Concepts Workshop: Enabling New Flight Concepts Through Novel Propulsion and Energy Architectures

On August 3rd and 4th, 2015, a workshop was held at the NASA Ames Research Center, located at the Moffett Federal Airfield in California to explore the aviation communities interest in Transformative Vertical Flight (TVF) Concepts. The Workshop was sponsored by the AHS International (AHS), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and hosted by the NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI). This second annual workshop built on the success and enthusiasm generated by the first TVF Workshop held in Washington, DC in August of 2014. The previous Workshop identified the existence of a multi-disciplinary community interested in this topic and established a consensus among the participants that opportunities to establish further collaborations in this area are warranted. The desire to conduct a series of annual workshops augmented by online virtual technical seminars to strengthen the TVF community and continue planning for advocacy and collaboration was a direct outcome of the first Workshop. The second Workshop organizers focused on four desired action-oriented outcomes. The first was to establish and document common stakeholder needs and areas of potential collaborations. This includes advocacy strategies to encourage the future success of unconventional vertiport capable flight concept solutions that are enabled by emerging technologies. The second was to assemble a community that can collaborate on new conceptual design and analysis tools to permit novel configuration paths with far greater multi-disciplinary coupling (i.e., aero-propulsive-control) to be investigated. The third was to establish a community to develop and deploy regulatory guidelines. This community would have the potential to initiate formation of an American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F44 Committee Subgroup for the development of consensus-based certification standards for General Aviation scale vertiport capable flight systems. These standards need to accommodate novel fixed wing concepts that do not fit within the existing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rotorcraft certification framework (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 27). The fourth desired outcome was to launch an information campaign to ensure key U.S. Government agencies understand the potential benefits and industry interest in establishing new vertiport capable flight markets. This record of the Workshop proceedings documents Workshop activities and products including summaries of the video recorded technical presentations, overviews of three breakout sessions (Missions Operational Concepts, Prioritized Technical Challenges, Regulatory Roadmap), and a preliminary draft roadmap framework for TVF.

V/STOL↗
DOE OSTI2022

Case study on the novel permitting and authorization of PacWave South, a US grid-connected wave energy test facility: Development, challenges, and insights

Marine energy (i.e., energy from waves, tides, currents, and rivers) in the United States is a nascent industry. In particular, permitting processes—an uncertainty for industry advancement that can be costly and time consuming to navigate—have rarely been tested and used for marine energy. The novelty of the marine energy industry and utilization of open ocean permitting processes that were not originally developed for marine energy have led to extensive efforts to gain consensus amongst state and federal regulatory agencies to authorize marine energy projects. In 2021, Oregon State University successfully completed permitting of a wave energy test facility, called PacWave South, off the coast of Oregon, which is designed to advance wave energy research and development. This article documents the multi-year process that Oregon State University used to receive federal and state authorization for a pre-permitted commercial-scale grid connected facility by detailing the development of the test facility, management of uncertainty and challenges, and key decisions. The PacWave South case study provides insights for the larger marine energy community as the industry advances towards commercialization.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2022

Accelerated Materials Deployment in Advanced Nuclear Power Plants

The purpose of this report is to begin the development of a maximally efficient process for licensing and deploying new materials in Advanced Non-Light-Water Reactors (ANLWRs). Some new materials that are to be used in some new plants are seen as possibly introducing risks, because our understanding of those new materials’ behavior in the conditions generated by some novel plant designs is less complete than our understanding of the behavior of materials with long use histories in existing designs. In these cases, an approved code/standard or a code case to support the use of these materials in the novel design’s safety case may not exist for the regulator to utilize as part of the licensing determination. This circumstance creates the potential for an extremely long licensing process for new designs using new materials. The present strategy is to show how to manage these risks proactively, in such a way as to permit licensing decisions to be made in a timely manner, based on this risk management process. The present report outlines the gaps in the current codes to support deployment and use of novel materials and begins the development of the necessary risk management framework that is focused on the subject materials issues; it is based on risk-informed in-service surveillance practices, carried out in such a way as to compensate for current limitations in our state of knowledge. This development will enable licensing and deployment of the subject materials, conditional on the proactive surveillance process to be established. While this report is occasioned by limitations in our knowledge of certain materials issues that may arise in advanced designs, in-service surveillance is always done in order to compensate for a lack of knowledge: if we knew that components were not already failed and not trending toward failure, we would not perform surveillance, even in current-generation plants (except that prescriptive requirements would force us to do so). What is different about the surveillance program discussed here is that the issues are newer and the relevant experience base is less complete, so the surveillance presently contemplated may need to measure new things and/or measure them more often than has been traditional for surveillance coupons. The present report is devoted to the risk management framework and applies American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI, Division [1] to establish the structure of a protocol for carrying out the necessary surveillance. These documents are generic: they do not tell us how often to surveille, or what to surveille, or what to measure, but rather how to determine those things, given certain technical inputs. The Regulatory Development R&D Program [2] is currently developing the companion supporting technical basis for the materials surveillance technology that, when completed and validated, can be used by owner/operator and NRC to implement a materials degradation management program for ANLWRs. This report also outlines salient points of discussion, positive potential outcomes, and potential concerns from industry and the USNRC. These aspects of the report intend to inform future work to develop a proposed technical process for adoption by the industry and endorsement by the USNRC to allow developers to propose a risk informed and conservative approach for the use of materials where operating experience/data and codes and standards may not exist for use of a novel material in an operating reactor environment. Additionally, such a technology could be leveraged to potentially reduce part of the upfront materials data requirements from ongoing long-term materials testing so that early action on license application could be undertaken by NRC, in parallel with the continuation of long-term data collection. This could accelerate the schedule for a first-of-a-kind ANLWR deployment or a nth-of-a-kind new materials insertion for established ANLWR designs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

LANL Environmental ALARA Program Status Report for CY 2020

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) ensures that radiation exposures to members of the public and the environment from LANL operations, past and present, are below regulatory thresholds and are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) through compliance with Department of Energy (DOE) Order 458.1 Radiation Protection for the Public and the Environment (DOE 2020), and LANL Functional Series Documents EPC-ES-FSD-004,Environmental Radiation Protection, (LANL 2020a) and EPC-ES-FSD-003, Los Alamos National Laboratory Environmental ALARA Program (LANL 2020b). These documents provide related program authorities, responsibilities, descriptions, processes, and thresholds for conducting qualitative and quantitative ALARA analyses for prospective and actual radiation exposures to the public and to the environment resulting from DOE activities conducted on the LANL site.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Multi-Mechanism Flood Hazard Assessment: Example Use Case Studies

Multi-mechanism flood (MMF) events are caused by the combined effects of more than one flooding mechanism. Although floods can result from the occurrence of individual flood mechanisms, they can (and often do) result from multiple flooding mechanisms. MMF events may be more severe than single mechanism events, or they may differ in characteristics. To facilitate comprehensive risk-informed decision-making to protect against and mitigate the effects of flood events, understanding the hazard contributions from MMFs is important. Nevertheless, conventional probabilistic flood hazard assessment approaches typically focus on individual flood hazard mechanisms. This report is part of a research project funded by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) intended to assist NRC in developing the technical basis for guidance on developing probabilistic estimates of flood hazards for combinations of flood mechanisms. Specifically, the purpose of this report is to document two case studies to illustrate approaches for quantifying MMF hazards for inland and coastal flooding scenarios.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

FAST-1.0: Integral Assessment: Developed under NQA-1-2017

An integral assessment has been performed to quantify the predictive capabilities of FAST, a thermal-mechanical nuclear fuel performance code designed to analyze fuel behavior from beginning of life to burnup levels allowed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). FAST code calculations are shown to compare satisfactorily to a preselected set of experimental data with both steady-state, anticipated operating occurrence (AOO) and design basis transient operating conditions. This document describes the assessment of FAST-1.0, which is the latest version of FAST, released February 2020.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

MatLib-1.2.2: Nuclear Material Properties Library

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the computer code Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and Transients (FAST) to model steady-state and transient fuel behavior to support regulatory decisions. FAST relies on a material properties library (MatLib) that contains the thermal and mechanical properties of the nuclear materials and coolants of interest to support the U.S. commercial nuclear industry. MatLib contains properties for a variety of nuclear fuels, cladding and other structural materials, gases, and coolants. In this document, material property correlations for the materials contained within MatLib are presented and discussed. When available, comparisons are made between the material property correlations and available data. Additionally, uncertainties are quantified on the material properties, which is then used by the NRC to support uncertainty quantification for best-estimate plus uncertainty safety evaluation reviews. This document describes MatLib-1.2.2, updated from MatLib-1.2.1 to include additional properties for metallic fuel. It is one of a series of documents on FAST; the other documents detail the models used by FAST as well as its integral assessment to experiments and commercial data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of Weakly Informed Priors for FLEX Data

On behalf of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has reviewed the development and use of “weakly informed prior” (WIP) probability distributions to obtain industry-wide failure probability and rate distributions for portable “FLEX” equipment, as documented in the Pressurized Water Reactor Owner’s Group (PWROG) report, FLEX Equipment Data Collection and Analysis (PWROG 18043-P) by MM Degonish. The review includes a description of the methods used by the PWROG analysts. It also includes an implementation of those methods for comparison purposes and an implementation of two constrained-noninformative (CN) distributions for further WIP comparisons. The report documents several issues that the review identified in the development of the WIP distributions. They relate to the quality and representativeness of the current portable “FLEX” component data, the choice of informed distributions for related installed components, and the lack of verification for the factors chosen to weaken the information from the installed components. Two errors occurred in the computations: the posterior distribution of the WIP was used to modify the WIP itself, resulting in a lack of independence between the WIP and the data; and an error was made in the conversion of WIP mean and variance values to beta distributions. The INL reviewers think the WIP distributions presented in the report are untenable for use in risk assessments at the present time because of these issues.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Scoping Analysis of MACCS Modeling Improvements for the Study of Protective Action Recommendations

In late 2004, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated a project to analyze the relative efficacy of alternative protective action strategies in reducing consequences to the public from a spectrum of nuclear power plant core melt accidents. The study is documented in NUREG/CR-6953, “Review of NUREG-0654, Supplement 3, ‘Criteria for Protective Action Recommendations for Severe Accidents,’” Volumes 1, 2, and 3. The Protective Action Recommendations (PAR) study provided a technical basis for enhancing the protective action guidance contained in Supplement 3, “Guidance for Protective Action Strategies,” to NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, “Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, ” dated November 2011. In the time since, a number of important changes and additions have been made to the MACCS code suite, the nuclear accident consequence analysis code used to perform the study. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the MACCS results used in the PAR study would be different given recent changes to the MACCS code suite and input parameter guidance. Updated parameters that were analyzed include cohorts, keyhole evacuation, shielding and exposure parameters, compass sector resolution, and a range of source terms from rapidly progressing accidents. Results indicate that using updated modeling assumptions and capabilities may lead to a decrease in predicted health consequences for those within the emergency planning zone compared to the original PAR study.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Causal CCF Parameter Estimations 2020

This report documents the quantitative results of the causal common-cause failure (CCF) parameter estimations for the failure cause groups “component,” “design,” “environment,” “human,” and “other,” based on CCF data through 2020 in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) CCF database: https://rads.inl.gov/Pages/CCF.aspx. This report utilizes the same data period (2006–2020) and CCF templates as INL/EXT-21-62940, Revision 1, CCF Parameter Estimations, 2020 Update. The 2015 causal CCF prior distributions for the specific failure cause groups (instead of the 2015 generic CCF prior distributions) were used in this report to estimate the associated causal CCF parameters. All the 2015 causal CCF prior distributions and generic CCF prior distributions were developed in INL/EXT-21-43723, Developing Generic Prior Distributions for Common Cause Failure Alpha Factors and Causal Alpha Factors, using CCF data from 1997 to 2015. These quantitative results were developed to support the causal alpha factor model and should be used as appropriate in probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) studies such as the NRC Significance Determination Process for commercial nuclear power plants in the United States.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Validation of the NLR Pumped Storage Hydropower Cost Model

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) first released its pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model in 2023 as the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The PSH cost model cannot replace detailed site-level studies and design, but it is important to validate it against other industry PSH cost estimates. The initial model methodology report validated the cost model for a single proposed site, the Eagle Mountain Project in California. This slide deck documents an expanded validation exercise using cost data from six other sites: Goldendale (Washington), Seminoe (Wyoming), Gordon Butte (Montana), Swan Lake (Oregon), White Pine (Oregon), and Lewis Ridge (Kentucky). It compares itemized costs from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) applications and other reported costs with NLR PSH cost model outputs after customizing inputs for each site. The validation exercise finds that the NLR model's conservative indirect cost assumptions often drive overall cost overestimation, with direct cost comparisons typically agreeing more closely. All cost model estimates are well within an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimation range (-50% to +100%), with five within the AACE Class 4 range (-30% to +50%) and four being within 15%. This result is considered reasonable performance for a parametric model applied at a preliminary design stage.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2020

UAM Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) UAM Maturity Level (UML) 4

This Vision ConOps is intended as a foundation to engage members of the UAM community and provide a consensus on the future vision of UAM operations. It provides a concept for more detailed discussion and a basis for the exploration of ideas using a common framework to inform the continued development and integration of UAM as part of the broader transportation system. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a range of innovative aviation technologies (small drones, electric aircraft, automated air traffic management, etc.) that are transforming aviation’s role in everyday life, including the movement of goods and people. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft, providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. This concept has generated tremendous interest and industry investment. UAM envisages a future in which advanced technologies and new operational procedures enable practical, cost-effective air travel as an integral mode of transportation in metropolitan areas. It represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. For this reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected UAM as the initial goal of its AAM efforts and the focus of this Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. UAM Community Vision ConOps: This Vision ConOps effort was led by experts from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Deloitte’s Ecosystem Advisory Group (a cohort of advisers with aviation, aerospace, and regulatory expertise). To develop this Vision ConOps, NASA, FAA, and Deloitte built upon the current body of aeronautical research and consulted with more than 100 stakeholder organizations. This UAM community includes entities ranging from legacy aviation leaders to innovators and new market entrants. Stakeholders consulted included the federal government, state and local government, aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local transportation organizations, prospective UAM operators, academia, industry standards-setting bodies, airports, service suppliers, and others (as described in Appendix G). This input was captured through the following methods: • A series of more than two dozen interviews with industry experts, federal regulators, state and local governments, and industry trade groups provided insight into the challenges of UAM integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), as well as technology developments and a variety of perspectives as to how UAM systems will integrate. • A series of two-day community workshops enabling active, detailed engagement of nearly 100 industry, academic, federal, and state stakeholder individuals. These workshops, hosted by NASA and Deloitte, explored UAM concepts in detail, and stakeholders were invited to collaboratively analyze and propose solutions to some of the greatest conceptual challenges behind UAM at an intermediate state. • A review of more than 160 sources of UAM literature from across government, industry, and academia, which are listed in Appendix H. • The public sharing of workshop input and document drafts for review and input across the UAM community. Feedback in the form of more than 1,000 comments and inputs on the document was received from industry groups, individual companies, academia, and government (federal, state, and local), among others. Although effort was made to incorporate inputs from across the UAM stakeholder group, not all comments could ultimately be incorporated in this version. The team resolved conflicting comments or ideas while maintaining consistency with the known direction of regulators and ensuring the document was coherent and consistent. It is recognized that this is a rapidly evolving area and that concepts will likely change over time; as such, this Vision ConOps is a living document and is expected to evolve as concepts mature. The ConOps does, however, provide a vision of UAM concepts and solutions based on the broad insights from across the UAM stakeholder community at the time of its publication and is intended to serve as a UAM North Star for continued research and development of UAM. As a broad Vision ConOps, is not a detailed engineering document; rather, it focuses primarily on outlining a broad, high-level vision across all aspects of a UAM transportation system.

Urban Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2015

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide

The NASA/SP-2015-3709, Human Systems Integration (HSI) Practitioner's Guide, also known as the "HSIPG," provides a tool for implementing HSI activities within the NASA systems engineering framework. The HSIPG is written to aid the HSI practitioner engaged in a program or project (P/P), and serves as a knowledge base to allow the practitioner to step into an HSI lead or team member role for NASA missions. Additionally, this HSIPG is written to address the role of HSI in the P/P management and systems engineering communities and aid their understanding of the value added by incorporating good HSI practices into their programs and projects. Through helping to build a community of knowledgeable HSI practitioners, this document also hopes to build advocacy across the Agency for establishing strong, consistent HSI policies and practices. Human Systems Integration (HSI) has been successfully adopted (and adapted) by several federal agencies-most notably the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-as a methodology for reducing system life cycle costs (LCCs). These cost savings manifest themselves due to reductions in required numbers of personnel, the practice of human-centered design, decreased reliance on specialized skills for operations, shortened training time, efficient logistics and maintenance, and fewer safety-related risks and mishaps due to unintended human/system interactions. The HSI process for NASA establishes how cost savings and mission success can be realized through systems engineering. Every program or project has unique attributes. This HSIPG is not intended to provide one-size-fits-all recommendations for HSI implementation. Rather, HSI processes should be tailored to the size, scope, and goals of individual situations. The instructions and processes identified here are best used as a starting point for implementing human-centered system concepts and designs across programs and projects of varying types, including manned and unmanned, human spaceflight, aviation, robotics, and environmental science missions. The practitioner using this guide should have expertise in Systems Engineering or other disciplines involved in producing systems with anticipated human interactions. (See section 1.6 of this guide for further discussion on HSI discipline domains.) The HSIPG provides an "HSI layer" to the NASA Systems Engineering Engine (SEE), detailed in NASA Procedural Requirement (NPR) 7123.1B, NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements, and further explained in NASA/SP-2007-6105, Systems Engineering Handbook (see HSIPG Table 2.2-1, NASA Documents with HSI Content, for specific references and document versions).

Zumbado, Jennifer Rochlis↗
DOE OSTI2021

CCF Parameter Estimations, 2020 Update

This report documents the quantitative results of the common-cause failure (CCF) data collection effort (which included data through 2020) and summarizes the results of the parameter estimation quantification process performed on CCF data in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) CCF database. This is the 2020 update to NUREG/CR-5497, updating data and parameter estimations for CCFs. This release, CCF Parameter Estimation 2020, reflects the CCF data contained within the CCF database, https://rads.inl.gov/Pages/CCF.aspx, by executing (in August 2021) the CCF query rules in the folder SPAR Rules 2020. The data covers the period from 1/1/2006 to 12/31/2020, the most recent 15-year period in which data are available. The use of the most recent rolling 15-year data in parameter estimation differs from previous updates, in which 1/1/1997 was used as the starting date (e.g., 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2015 for the 2015 update, 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2012 for the 2012 update). The new date range (i.e., the most recent 15-year period), was selected for this CCF update so as to be consistent with the date range chosen for the component reliability parameter estimation, and with the effort to include sufficient data for analysis while simultaneously reflecting the most recent industry performance. These results are appropriate for use in probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) studies, including the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) models of commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the U.S. This update may be referred as: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "CCF Parameter Estimations, 2020 Update," https://nrcoe.inl.gov/publicdocs/CCF/ccfparamest2020.pdf, November 2021.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗