SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “safety”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 199 records · Page 11

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2006

Model-Based Safety Analysis

System safety analysis techniques are well established and are used extensively during the design of safety-critical systems. Despite this, most of the techniques are highly subjective and dependent on the skill of the practitioner. Since these analyses are usually based on an informal system model, it is unlikely that they will be complete, consistent, and error free. In fact, the lack of precise models of the system architecture and its failure modes often forces the safety analysts to devote much of their effort to gathering architectural details about the system behavior from several sources and embedding this information in the safety artifacts such as the fault trees. This report describes Model-Based Safety Analysis, an approach in which the system and safety engineers share a common system model created using a model-based development process. By extending the system model with a fault model as well as relevant portions of the physical system to be controlled, automated support can be provided for much of the safety analysis. We believe that by using a common model for both system and safety engineering and automating parts of the safety analysis, we can both reduce the cost and improve the quality of the safety analysis. Here we present our vision of model-based safety analysis and discuss the advantages and challenges in making this approach practical.

Joshi, Anjali↗

NASA NTRS2006

A Silent Safety Program

NASA's Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) referred 8 times to the NASA "Silent Safety Program." This term, "Silent Safety Program" was not an original observation but first appeared in the Rogers Commission's Investigation of the Challenger Mishap. The CAIB on page 183 of its report in the paragraph titled 'Encouraging Minority Opinion,' stated "The Naval Reactor Program encourages minority opinions and "bad news." Leaders continually emphasize that when no minority opinions are present, the responsibility for a thorough and critical examination falls to management. . . Board interviews revealed that it is difficult for minority and dissenting opinions to percolate up through the agency's hierarchy. . ." The first question and perhaps the only question is - what is a silent safety program? Well, a silent safety program may be the same as the dog that didn't bark in Sherlock Holmes' "Adventure of the Silver Blaze" because system safety should behave as a devil's advocate for the program barking on every occasion to insure a critical review inclusion. This paper evaluates the NASA safety program and provides suggestions to prevent the recurrence of the silent safety program alluded to in the Challenger Mishap Investigation. Specifically targeted in the CAM report, "The checks and balances the safety system was meant to provide were not working." A silent system safety program is not unique to NASA but could emerge in any and every organization. Principles developed by Irving Janis in his book, Groupthink, listed criteria used to evaluate an organization's cultural attributes that allows a silent safety program to evolve. If evidence validates Jams's criteria, then Jams's recommendations for preventing groupthink can also be used to improve a critical evaluation and thus prevent the development of a silent safety program.

Goodin, James Ronald↗

DOE OSTI2025

Enhancing traffic safety analysis with digital twin technology: integrating vehicle dynamics and environmental factors into microscopic traffic simulation

Traffic safety is a critical concern in transportation engineering and urban planning. Traditional traffic safety analysis requires trained observers to collect data in the field, which is time-consuming, labor-intensive, and sometimes inaccurate. In recent years, microscopic traffic simulation, which simulates individual vehicles’ movements within a transportation network, have been utilized to study traffic safety. However, microscopic traffic simulation only focuses on traffic-related factors, such as traffic volume, traffic signals, and lane configurations, neglecting vehicle dynamics and environment-related factors like weather and lighting conditions, which can significantly impact traffic safety. In light of this, this paper explores the application of digital twin technology in traffic safety analysis, integrating vehicle simulators, which consider vehicle dynamics and environmental factors, and microscopic traffic simulators, which simulate the operations of traffic flow, for enhanced safety evaluations. Various scenarios, including different weather conditions and visibility levels, are simulated using a digital twin of a road segment in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The simulations employ Surrogate Safety Measures (SSMs) like Time to Collision (TTC) and Deceleration Rate to Avoid a Crash (DRAC) to assess safety under varying conditions. The results demonstrate that traffic digital twin can identify potential safety issues that traditional microscopic simulation cannot, providing insights for improving traffic control strategies and transportation infrastructure to enhance traffic safety.

Civil engineering↗

DOE OSTI1992

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 Technical Note: A New Approach to Fission Reactor Safety, Yu. V. Petrov; 5 Erratum; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 6 Analysis and Modeling of Fission Product Release from Various Uranium-Aluminum Plate-Type Reactor Fuels, R. P. Taleyarkhan; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Applications of a Surveillance and Diagnostics Methodology Using Neutron Noise From a Pressurized-Water Reactor, R. T. Wood, L. F. Miller, and R. B. Perez; DESIGN FEATURES: 36 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 Plant, B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck; 47 System 80+™ PWR Safety Design, C. W. Bagnal, R. A. Matzie, and R. S. Turk; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 58 The MATS Experiments—Mesoscale Atmospheric Transport Studies at the Savannah River Site, A. H. Weber, S. Berman, R. J. Kurzeja, and R. P. Addis; 75 Book Review: Environmental Radioactivity in the European Community 1984-1985-1986, C. A. Little; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 76 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 87 Aging Assessment of BWR Control Rod Drive Systems, R. H. Greene; 100 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 103 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 110 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 129 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 139 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 143 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 128 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 128 16th Biennial ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Operating Experience: Present and Future Technologies—Applying Lessons Learned (Call for Papers); 147 The Authors; 150 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 32; 154 Errata.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1992

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1989

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 3, July-September 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 325 Safety of Framatome Advanced Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Designs by J. A. Charles and D. Lange, 333 Book Review of Nuclear Accidents: Intervention Levels for the Protection of the Public by H. B. Piper; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 335 Living PRA Computer Systems by S. C. Dinsmore and H.-P. Balfanz, 343 Summary of ICAP Assessments of RELAP5/MOD2 by W. E. Driskell and R. G. Hanson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 352 Thermal Performance Monitoring System at Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant by H.-J. Chao, Y.-P. Lin, G.-H. Jou, L.-Y. Liao, and Y.-B. Chen; DESIGN FEATURES: 358 Warning Systems for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies by J. H. Sorensen and D. S. Mileti; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 371 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 382 Steam Generator Tube Performance: Experience with Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors During 1985 by O. S. Tatone and R. L. Tapping, 400 Systems Interaction Analyses: Concepts and Techniques (Part II) by M. D. Muhlheim and G. A. Murphy, 413 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 416 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 440 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 460 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 466 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 470 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31, 1989; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 334 Proceedings Published, 351 CEC Seminar on Methods and Codes for Assessing the Off-Site Consequences of Nuclear Accidents, 357 Short Course on Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer: Bases and Applications in A: The Nuclear Power Industry B: The Process Industries, 357 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 478 International Topical Meeting on the Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, 475 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRS2017

Real-Time Prediction of Safety Margins in the National Airspace

Underlying all operations in the National Airspace System (NAS) is the concept of safety. Safety, as defined by acceptable levels of risk, is to be maintained at all times. The real-time safety monitoring (RTSM) framework is under development to provide an automated system to quantify safety in the NAS, estimate the current level of safety, and predict the future evolution of safety and the occurrence of events that pose an increased risk to flights so that these occurrences can be managed strategically rather than mitigated reactively. This paper presents the mathematical framework, the models, and the monitoring and prediction algorithms used to achieve this. RTSM computes safety as expressed through a set of safety margins based on user-defined safety metrics, thresolds, and events. Sources of uncertainty are modeled and propagated through the predictions in order to compute the probabilistic evolution of safety and the probability of events that introduce increased risk to operations. A prototype implementation is discussed and results demonstrating feasibility are presented. The results highlight the kinds of predictions that can be computed and the fidelity that is currently achieved.

national airspace system↗

NASA NTRS2018

Identification of Safety Metrics for Airport Surface Operations

A large fraction of safety incidents occurs on the ground during airport surface operations. Although these incidents are mostly non-fatal with a few exceptions, they are high profile incidents that remain a source of concern for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), major airlines, and other stakeholders of the National Airspace System (NAS). These incidents have historically been mitigated by implementing changes to regulations, policies, and procedures over time. This approach has minimized but not eliminated the risk of occurrence of safety incidents. It is thus important to develop integrated techniques to assess, model, and prevent these incidents by analyzing the risk and likelihood of occurrence and communicating results of the analysis to decision-making personnel who can mitigate and prevent incidents in real time. The work presented in this paper builds on a previously developed architecture for safety, Real-Time Safety Monitoring (RTSM), to enable monitoring and prediction of the safety of the NAS. In the RTSM framework, hazards to flight are translated to safety metrics such as wake vortex encounters or loss of separation, that can be modeled and analyzed offline and also predicted and monitored in real time (online). The intent of this paper is to integrate predictable incidents that occur during surface and ground operations into the safety portfolio of the RTSM project by (i) identifying suitable information sources from which ground incidents can be studied, (ii) developing safety metrics correlated with surface operations, and (iii) recommending suitable data sources that can be quantified and used for the computation of pertinent safety metrics.

safety↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

System Safety Analysis of Complex NASA Systems with Model-Based Engineering (REV B)

The emergence of model-based engineering is transforming design and analysis methodologies. A recognized benefit of model-based engineering is the existence of a “single source of truth” about the system that becomes the authoritative source of data and information for designers, analysts, and developers. This promotes consistency and efficiency as the design emerges and can be used to further optimize the design. Integrating System Safety Engineers to the “single source of truth” will ensure that the outputs of their assessments and analyses are relevant to the design as it evolves. Use of an integrated system model enables near immediate evaluation of a design change as well as development of operational processes for risk assessment and communication. Such models can enable efficient and timely analysis of system hazards (e.g., hazard fault tree analysis and procedure simulations) and produce complete, accurate, and more consistent products (e.g., hazard reports and safety requirement evaluations). Therefore, an agency-sponsored team at Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) recently completed a System Safety Study of modeling and testing capabilities as part of a Model-Based Safety and Mission Assurance Initiative (MBSMAI). Using an existing model developed for reliability analyses, GSFC modeling and system safety experts performed system safety analysis/modeling and produced safety products. The team evaluated model-based feasibility to support System Safety Engineering, developed safety analysis modeling processes, and identified tool capability advancement/development needs. These study results indicate model-based engineering is valid and useable for System Safety Engineering for NASA if adequate modeling processes and environment are established.

NASA↗

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 2, July-December 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 195 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part III: Chernobyl Source Term Release Dynamics and Reconstruction of Events During the Active Phase, A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 218 Second ANS Workshop on the Safety of Soviet-Designed Nuclear Power Plants, R. A. Bari; 234 Elements of a Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, C. M. Hopper; 243 Rickover, Excellence, and Criticality Safety Programs, R. E. Wilson; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 249 Transient Analysis of the PIUS Advanced Reactor Design with the TRAC-PF1/MOD2 Code, B. E. Boyack, J. L Steiner, S. C. Harmony, H. J. Stumpf, and J. F. Lime; 278 The Hierarchy-By-Interval Approach to Identifying Important Models that Need Improvement in Severe-Accident Simulation Codes, T. J. Heames, M. Khatib-Rahbar, J. E. Kelly, R. P. Jenks-Johnson, and Y.-S. Chen; 290 RELAP5/MOD3 Code Coupling Model, R. P. Martin; 299 Missiles Caused by Severe Pressurized-Water Reactor Accidents, R. Krieg; DESIGN FEATURES: 310 Validation of COMMIX with Westinghouse AP-600 PCCS Test Data, J. G. Sun, T. H. Chien, J. Ding, and W T. Sha; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 321 Spent Nuclear Fuel Characterization for a Bounding Reference Assembly for the Receiving Basin for Off-Site Fuel, S. D. Kahook, R. L. Garrett, L. R. Canas, and M J. Beckum; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 332 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 335 Reactor Coolant System Blowdown at Wolf Creek on September 17, 1994, J. V. Kauffman and S. L. Israel; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 344 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Oueener; 349 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 320 Symposium on Acceptability of Risk From Radiation—Application to Manned Space Flight; 320 24th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference; 361 Radiation Biology and Radiation Protection— Modern Developments and Tendencies in Radiation Biology; 362 1997 IEEE Sixth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants; 354 The Authors; 360 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 36.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Transition Core Planning and Safety Analyses in Support of LEU Fuel Conversion of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)

The University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR®) is one of six U.S. High Performance Research Reactors (USHPRR), including one critical facility, that is working with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Reactor Conversion Program to convert from highly enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The M3 Reactor Conversion USHPRR Project objectives include the development of LEU fuel element designs that will ensure safe reactor operations and to maintain the existing experimental performance of each facility. The work is being conducted through many inter-related activities being completed by four Project Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ), Fuel Fabrication (FF), Reactor Conversion (RC), and Cross Cutting (CC). A new type of LEU fuel based on an alloy of uranium-10 wt% molybdenum (U-10Mo) is expected to allow the conversion of those USHPRR, like MURR, requiring higher density fuels. The very-high-density LEU U-10Mo monolithic fuel is currently undergoing irradiation testing and post-irradiation examination under a planned and documented fuel qualification effort. The FQ Pillar will document fuel property and fuel performance data and qualify the fuel for use in these reactors. The FF Pillar is fabricating fuel for ongoing and future irradiation tests, as well as conducting fabrication demonstrations to validate or update preliminary fabrication assumptions. The FF Pillar is also working to develop and install commercial manufacturing capacity with the U-10Mo monolithic fuel to produce prototypic fuel. Working with the RC Pillar at Argonne, MURR has progressed through a preliminary fuel element design using preliminary data for the proposed monolithic alloy of U-10Mo. Analyses were completed in previous work that found for typical equilibrium operations with the preliminary LEU fuel element design, in conjunction with a power uprate to 12 MW and appropriate changes to the MURR Limiting safety system settings (LSSS), MURR will have adequate margins to safety for steady-state operations and postulated transient accidents and will have experimental performance in key locations that meets or exceeds current operations with HEU fuel. The purpose of this work is to develop a sequence of transition cycles that will enable MURR to transition from operation with the reactor core loaded with fresh LEU fuel elements only to typical equilibrium operations with mixed-burnup cores following conversion while meeting operational requirements on safety and experimental performance. It is expected that the use of fresh LEU fuel at conversion and subsequent low burnup of the LEU fuel elements that will initially be available for use following conversion will result in critical control blade positions that will substantially change the axial power distribution in the core and the neutron flux available in key experimental locations relative to equilibrium LEU operations. Given the constraints of MURR safety margins, operational practices, and production and research, a novel method has been developed to identify a transition sequence that minimizes the time MURR operates atypically compared to the current prototypic cycles using HEU fuel. The proposed transition sequence moves quickly to the same sort of equilibrium cycles for the LEU fuel that have already been evaluated in documented preliminary safety analyses. Although shifting the neutron flux peak to the lower half of the core during initial cycles with LEU at 12 MW reduces the experiment performance in some key locations relative to current HEU operations at 10 MW, all LEU cores provide an average performance that meets or exceeds that of HEU. An LEU cycle is reached that meets or exceeds the level of experimental performance predicted for current HEU and equilibrium LEU operations in more than 450 key locations identified by a reactor specialist at MURR by the 23rd cycle following conversion and that afterwards will enable MURR to consistently meet its experimental performance requirements. The proposed transition sequence only requires the fabrication of 34 fresh LEU elements in the first year of operation and does not exceed the anticipated availability of fresh elements that can be produced by the fuel fabricator. By the third year after conversion, 22 fresh LEU elements will be required each year, which is the same as expected for equilibrium LEU operations and the same as current operations with HEU fuel. The proposed transition sequence thus combines a relatively short time period before equilibrium burnup is achieved, a temporary increase of fuel elements needed annually relative to typical operations that are within the production capabilities of the fuel fabricator, and demonstrates comparable experimental performance of the LEU cores relative to current HEU operations. Further measures may be taken to reduce any initial experimental performance penalty even further, where possible, by repositioning certain experiments to leverage the increased performance in the lower axial experimental positions in the initial cycles following conversion or leaving the experiments in the irradiation facilities longer in order to achieve the required neutron fluence. This analysis may require refinement depending on the experimental facilities in use at the time of conversion. Nonetheless, the results presented here, including the experimental performance, core burnup, and critical control blade positions throughout the transition cycles, show that the proposed transition cycle fuel management patterns are consistent with what is expected and desired for MURR operation with LEU U-10Mo fuel. Detailed core power distributions from the neutronics models were also used to evaluate safety margins during steady-state operations for the selected transition cycles and the equilibrium LEU core. It is shown that there are adequate safety margins for both steady-state operations and postulated accident scenarios. For the steady-state operations with the preliminary LEU fuel element design the analysis predicts at least 2.49 MW margin to the onset of flow instability at the LSSS power of 15 MW. Considering the LSSS power is 125% of full license power, the margin to OFI is sufficient. In addition, the critical heat flux ratio at LSSS power is well above the requirement of CHFR > 2.0 from NUREG-1537 for all considered cases. For postulated transient accidents, the minimum margin to the fuel temperature safety limit is at least 109 °C. In summary, the proposed sequence of core loadings for MURR operations following conversion to LEU fuel and a power uprate to 12 MW provides sufficient safety margins for both steady-state operations and postulated transient accidents during a proposed sequence of transition cycles to equilibrium operations. Analysis has shown that there are some local experimental performance penalties during the initial cycles. Although there are local shifts in the experimental performance, on average all LEU cores at 12 MW have equal or higher performance than HEU at 10 MW. Temporary adjustments are being planned that will produce suitable experimental performance during these cycles. The results indicate that for the equilibrium LEU core the experimental performance exceeds that of current HEU operations in all key locations while also demonstrating sufficient safety margins.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRS2010

Proposal for Ground Safety Review Coordination at ISS Launch Sites

As the transportation of ISS payloads and cargo shifts from KSC to other launch sites, close coordination of ground safety review processes would be of benefit to all parties. The benefit would have the launch sites receiving consistent data that would require less effort to review while still meeting their needs. Until recently, ground safety focus for the ISS program has been almost exclusively for prelaunch processing at KSC/post-landing processing at KSC/DFRC Each launch site, used by the ISS Program, has a ground safety review process. Ground safety viewed as local prerogative. Up till now, ground processing has consisted of low risk/low hazard items; but this will not always be the case. Recent coordination issues associated with the ground safety review of ORU's to be processed at Tanegashima for HTV-2, illustrate that IP ground safety review processes are not well understood by the ISS community at large. Confusion for data providers (US only?). Lack of internal review process for data being submitted to launch sites can lead to inconsistent submittals. NCRs/HRs. Majority of IP ground safety requirements are based upon old KHB 1700.7 (now KNPR 8715.3, Chapter 20). Proposals include: Establish a ground safety working group as part of the MS&MAP. Search for efficiencies in requirements and data submittal processes. Document processes in NSTS 13830/SSP 30599. Each launch site report out its payload ground safety status at the F2F (Monthly's as required). Completions/due dates/NCRs/issues/changes. Establish internal processes for review of ground safety submittals.

Kirkpatrick, Paul D.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Flightdeck Automation Problems (FLAP) Model for Safety Technology Portfolio Assessment

NASA's Aviation Safety Program (AvSP) develops and advances methodologies and technologies to improve air transportation safety. The Safety Analysis and Integration Team (SAIT) conducts a safety technology portfolio assessment (PA) to analyze the program content, to examine the benefits and risks of products with respect to program goals, and to support programmatic decision making. The PA process includes systematic identification of current and future safety risks as well as tracking several quantitative and qualitative metrics to ensure the program goals are addressing prominent safety risks accurately and effectively. One of the metrics within the PA process involves using quantitative aviation safety models to gauge the impact of the safety products. This paper demonstrates the role of aviation safety modeling by providing model outputs and evaluating a sample of portfolio elements using the Flightdeck Automation Problems (FLAP) model. The model enables not only ranking of the quantitative relative risk reduction impact of all portfolio elements, but also highlighting the areas with high potential impact via sensitivity and gap analyses in support of the program office. Although the model outputs are preliminary and products are notional, the process shown in this paper is essential to a comprehensive PA of NASA's safety products in the current program and future programs/projects.

Ancel, Ersin↗

NASA NTRS2016

Addressing Uniqueness and Unison of Reliability and Safety for a Better Integration

Over time, it has been observed that Safety and Reliability have not been clearly differentiated, which leads to confusion, inefficiency, and, sometimes, counter-productive practices in executing each of these two disciplines. It is imperative to address this situation to help Reliability and Safety disciplines improve their effectiveness and efficiency. The paper poses an important question to address, "Safety and Reliability - Are they unique or unisonous?" To answer the question, the paper reviewed several most commonly used analyses from each of the disciplines, namely, FMEA, reliability allocation and prediction, reliability design involvement, system safety hazard analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, and Probabilistic Risk Assessment. The paper pointed out uniqueness and unison of Safety and Reliability in their respective roles, requirements, approaches, and tools, and presented some suggestions for enhancing and improving the individual disciplines, as well as promoting the integration of the two. The paper concludes that Safety and Reliability are unique, but compensating each other in many aspects, and need to be integrated. Particularly, the individual roles of Safety and Reliability need to be differentiated, that is, Safety is to ensure and assure the product meets safety requirements, goals, or desires, and Reliability is to ensure and assure maximum achievability of intended design functions. With the integration of Safety and Reliability, personnel can be shared, tools and analyses have to be integrated, and skill sets can be possessed by the same person with the purpose of providing the best value to a product development.

Huang, Zhaofeng↗

NASA NTRS2023

Information and Best Practices Related to NASA Nuclear Flight Safety for Space Flights Involving Space Nuclear Systems

The purpose of this handbook is to facilitate a repeatable and robust process that promotes clear and effective interfaces between activities and stakeholders focused on meeting nuclear flight safety requirements for missions utilizing space nuclear systems (SNS), within the context of NASA’s broader nuclear-related activities and interfaces. NPR 8715.26, Nuclear Flight Safety, requires that the NASA project manager “incorporate nuclear flight safety considerations starting with program or project formulation through the point at which the SNS or other radioactive material no longer has the potential to affect Earth’s biosphere.” NASA’s use of SNS inherently involves partnering with other stakeholders to conduct a range of related activities that interface with nuclear flight safety. From a categorical perspective these include: (i) meeting the authorities and licensing requirements for possession and use of nuclear material, as governed by other Federal authorities; (ii) conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities for nuclear-enabled missions; (iii) meeting Federal nuclear launch authorization requirements; (iv) conducting radiological contingency planning activities, including those associated with international commitments; (v) performing risk communication and public outreach activities; and (vi) ensuring decommissioning and disposal strategies reflect National policies and interests. It is the intent of this handbook to promote an effective interface between nuclear flight safety and these interrelated categorical activities. In addition to activities undertaken with partnering agencies, there are individual nuclear-related activities and programs that have a nexus to nuclear flight safety, and these include: (i) applicable NASA Standing Review Boards; (ii) the US Department of Energy nuclear safety activities conducted in partnership with NASA under Memoranda of Understanding; (iii) the Department of Defense’s Range Safety activities; (iv) NASA’s general involvement in interagency and international dialogues regarding nuclear safety; (v) the NASA-administered Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Board; (vi) NASA’s program and project governance activities and nuclear-specific Technical Discipline Team activities under the Office of the Chief Engineer; and others. It is the intent of this handbook to promote effective leveraging of these additional interrelated organizational activities, as appropriate.

Donald Helton↗

DOE OSTI2023

Nonlinear control of safety factor gradient in tokamaks using spatially variable electron cyclotron current drives

Active control of plasma properties may be necessary to achieve stable operation of next-generation tokamaks over large time scales. Such control algorithms can regulate the plasma properties to avoid the onset of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) instabilities. For instance, the global and local properties of the safety factor profile are linked to the onset of neoclassical tearing modes (NTMs). This work proposes a model-based control approach for deterring/delaying NTMs through active modulation of one of the safety factor properties - the gradient of the safety factor profile at a particular rational safety factor surface. In particular, a novel control-oriented model for the local safety factor gradient is developed. The nonlinear control model is governed by a nonautonomous ordinary differential equation that accounts for a given rational safety factor surface’s spatial variation over time. Further, to improve the controllability of the spatially evolving parameter, the control model treats ECH&CD positions, along with noninductive powers, as controllable variables. A nonlinear control algorithm based on feedback linearization with optimization is synthesized to achieve the objective of regulating the safety factor gradient around a given target. The proposed algorithm allocates optimal ECH&CD positions, in addition to auxiliary powers, at each time instant as the rational safety factor surface drifts to locations with a low control authority. Stability guarantees of the proposed control law are also discussed in this work. The proposed algorithm is tested for a DIII-D tokamak scenario in nonlinear simulations carried out using the Control Oriented Transport SIMulator (COTSIM). Both fixed and moving ECH&CD cases are studied, and their outcomes are compared. Simulation results demonstrate that enthusiastic regulation of the safety factor gradient can be achieved during the ramp-up and flat-top phases of tokamak operation in both fixed and moving ECH&CD cases. However, real-time updates of ECH&CD positions can prevent the saturation of auxiliary powers.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI1993

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 34, No. 1, January-March 1993]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 An Integrated Regional Approach To Risk Management of Industrial Systems, S. Chakraborty and R. Stratton; 9 Annual Technical Meeting of the NRC Cooperative Severe Accident Research Program, E. G. Silver; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 13 Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria as Severe Accident Design Criteria and Policy for the New Production Reactor-Heavy Water Reactor, P. T. Rhoads; 20 Proposed Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria for the Heavy Water Reactor-New Production Reactor Containment, K. D. Bergeron, S. E. Slezak, and C. E. Leach; 33 Quasi-Static Core Liquid Level Depression and Long-Term Core Uncovery During a PWR LOCA, Y. Kukita, R. R. Schultz, H. Nakamura, and J. Katayama; 49 LIRA: An Advanced Containment System to Minimize the Accidental Radioactivity Releases, A. Turricchia; 63 Errata to “A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs,” Vol. 33, No. 4; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 64 The Nuplex 80+™ Advanced Control Complex from ABB Combustion Engineering, F. Ridolfo, D. Harmon, and K. Scarola; DESIGN FEATURES: 76 A Scheme for Passive Isolation of the Containment of a Reactor, A. K. Ghosh, V. V. Raj, and K. Kakodkar; 84 Utility Requirements for Safety in the Passive Advanced Light-Water Reactor, T. U. Marston, W. H. Layman, and G. Bockhold, Jr.; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 91 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 103 Testing Deficiencies in Auxiliary Systems Feedwater Systems, J. D. Kueck; 110 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 113 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 115 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 133 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 145 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 150 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 75 Harvard Short Course on Risk: Science, Assessment, and Management; 102 International Conference on Reactor Physics and Reactor Computations; 102 The Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Waste Management [RECOD ’94]; 132 International Symposium on the Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea [MARINA-MED]; 162 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference ‘Technology Integration—Above and Below”; 154 The Authors; 158 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 33.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI1996

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 1, January-March 1996]

05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗