Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Security Considerations”

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.

201 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Site Integration and Regulatory Considerations for a Nuclear Power Plant Colocated with Industrial Facilities: Colocation Studies for a Petroleum Refinery, Methanol Plant, and Wood Pulp Plant

This research explores the colocation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) with industrial applications. Three existing industrial sites were considered to demonstrate the siting process and illuminate technological gaps for future work. The three applications demonstrated for colocation here are a petroleum refinery, a methanol production plant, and a pulp and paper plant. This study uses a modified version of the EPRI siting criteria to explore the geological and demographic characteristics of the location of the current industrial site, as well as exploring external hazards from the industrial plant and its surrounding land use. Data was collected from public databases to estimate site characteristics. We then discuss how the site characteristics may impact the ability to colocate an NPP with an industrial application. The application site and 5 additional sites were explored for each application to give a general indication of the siting implications for an NPP in each area. The hazards for each industrial application was also explored to determine how colocation may impact reactor safety. The following gaps have been identified and should be explored in future research on colocation of NPPs with petroleum refineries, methanol plants, and pulp and paper plants: - There is a variety of industrial use, hazards, and pipelines in the surrounding area. A more thorough review of these hazards should be considered for colocation. - In general, the whole region around some applications seems to have softer soil, with implications for large site preparation costs. Further site investigations should prioritize looking into the geotechnical conditions. - Applications along coastlines are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. The benefits of colocation should be weighed against the potential design implications. - The benefits of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in place should be explored further. If heat supply from the NPP is not required or not feasible due to the distance between the NPP and the application, there may be an opportunity to supply hydrogen to the plant through an existing pipeline. - Because there are several collocated industrial plants in the regions for the refinery and methanol plant, the benefits of sharing resources from the NPP should be explored further. This may open up additional sites for colocation. The following knowledge gaps were identified for the colocation of NPPs with these three industries, and industrial applications in general. These gaps are: - While the STAND tool contains many important characteristics for the reactor siting process, it is not calibrated for the colocation of NPPs with industrial facilities. - There are aspects of both the NPP and industrial application that need to be quantified for a siting analysis. Particularly, we need to understand the water intake requirements for NPPs and each application. - Further work may focus on adapting the STAND site comparison methodology to comparison of sites for co-location. This will involve using the data documented in this report as a starting point and performing a comprehensive and quantitative comparison. - Without spending significant resources, it would be impossible to gather data for each site to evaluate all aspects of siting. One approach to finding data and understanding its implications to siting is looking at FSARs for existing plants. For example, most sites considered in this study have small Vs30 values, indicating soft soil. However, there are NPPs located in the vicinity of most of the sites (e.g., Waterford Steam Electric Station near New Orleans) and reviewing available site characteristics and geotechnical data for these NPPs, might provide further information for siting. - The siting analysis in this study indicates that colocation of the NPP with the industrial site could be difficult based on external hazards, cooling requirements, weather, or population. We need to determine the impact of distance between the two facilities on cost and quality of energy transport. - This study did not touch on socioeconomic impacts for NPP colocation with industrial facilities. The input-output analysis methodology could be applied to the communities referenced in this study to determine the socioeconomic impact of these projects. - Similarly, the impacts of colocation on emergency planning was not explored in this study. The impacts on emergency planning infrastructure are somewhat related to the socioeconomic impacts, and could be explored using a similar methodology. - This study also did not address physical and cybersecurity, which will be important aspects of co-location [ref] . Cybersecurity will be important, regardless of the distance, but physical security will be important if the facilities are located very closely. Physical security might also be important for the steam lines between the plants, unless they are determined to be non-safety significant. - In many site l

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 1, January-June 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: 1 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part II: The State of the Nuclear Fuel Located Within the Chornobyl Sarcophagus, A A. Borovoi and A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 33 Nuclear Power Safety in Central and Eastern Europe, R. Wilson; 46 Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors in the Former Eastern European Countries, S. Chakraborty; 53 Technical Note: On the Definition of Common-Cause Failures, H. Paula; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 58 Modeling and Analysis of Core-Debris Recriticality During Hypothetical Severe Accidents in the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor, S.-H. Kim, V. Georgevich, D. B. Simpson, C. O. Slater, and R. P. Taleyarkhan; 68 Ignitability of Hydrogen/Oxygen/Diluent Mixtures in the Presence of Hot Surfaces, R. K. Kumar and G. W. Koroll; 94 Coupled RELAP5 and CONTAIN Accident Analysis Using PVM, K. A. Smith, A. J. Baratta, and G. E. Robinson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 109 Application of Fuzzy Logic in Nuclear Reactor Control Part I: An Assessment of State-of-the-Art, A. S. Heger, N. K. Alang-Rashid, and M. Jamshidi; DESIGN FEATURES: 122 Twenty-Third DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, and M. W. First; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 135 Atmospheric Dispersion and the Radiological Consequences of Normal Airborne Effluents from a Nuclear Power Plant, D. Fang, C. Z. Sun, and L. Yang; 142 Calculation of Distribution Coefficients for Radionuclides in Soils and Sediments, I. Puigdomenech and U. Bergstrom: OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 155 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 158 Operating Experience Feedback Report—Reliability of Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Standby Pumps Used in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, J. R. Boardman; 166 Turbine Building Hazards, H. L Ornstein; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 169 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 175 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 32 Harvard School of Public Health In-Place Filter Testing Workshop; 134 International Conference on Advances in the Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants; 193 30th Tennessee Industries Week; 193 DOE Technical Standards Program 1995 Workshop; 194 Multiphase Flow Experiments and Instrumentation; 180 The Authors; 185 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volumes 34 and 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Williston Basin Resource Study for Commercial-Scale Subsurface Hydrogen Storage

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the EERC’s State Energy Research Center (SERC), MPLX Operations LLC, and TC Energy Development Holdings Inc. (a subsidiary of TC Energy Corporation), studied the potential for subsurface hydrogen storage and recovery in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota. The project’s goal was to evaluate the feasibility of large-scale, secure geologic H 2 storage to support future hydrogen generation, storage, and use. This work included laboratory testing, H 2 –rock–fluid exposure experiments, literature reviews on H 2 embrittlement, and reservoir modeling and simulations. The study included an assessment of storage potential across three types of storage reservoirs using both reservoir simulation and DOE’s web-based tool SHASTA-HELP (Subsurface Hydrogen Assessment, Storage, and Technology Acceleration – Hydrogen Estimator for Logistical Planning), as well as investigation of potential H 2 production and markets for commercial-scale deployment. Building on prior EERC gas storage research, three storage options were selected for detailed evaluation: the Broom Creek Formation (a clastic saline reservoir), the Dickinson Lodgepole Mounds (DLM) complex (carbonate mud mound structures) of the Lodgepole Formation (an active oil and gas producing reservoir), and the Dunham Salt Interval of the Piper Formation (to be used for engineered salt cavern development). These targets were prioritized based on prior EERC research using datasets related to seal capacity, reservoir quality, mechanical integrity, and injectivity. Exposure tests on Broom Creek and DLM samples showed mineral dissolution and precipitation that increased brine salinity and altered reservoir rock surfaces. Although these results provide useful insight, they are limited by small sample sizes and short-term (30-day) exposure, requiring further study to assess long-term storage integrity. Salt formations were not tested because of their known nonreactivity and established mechanical stability. Results of reservoir simulations performed for a single site demonstrated that the Broom Creek Formation may be capable of receiving up to 42,000 tonnes of injected H 2 over 7 months via one well. H 2 recovery took place over 5 months, resulting in approximately 26,000 tonnes (~62% without cushion gas [CG]). This work suggests water production may be important and subsequent cycles of injection and production may perform more efficiently; however, significant site-specific work in the future is needed to assess actual reservoir performance of injection and withdrawal of H 2 storage. For oil reservoir potential, a multiple-well model was used to simulate injection of approximately 32,000 tonnes of H 2 into a single wellbore while simultaneously producing in place reservoir fluids from four offset wells to maintain reservoir pressure. The simulation results suggested a high recovery (~98%); in addition, cost advantages through existing infrastructure could be realized. Challenges in this reservoir include vi managing gas purity and leakage risks. In both scenarios, production of H 2 takes place in a single-well scenario with 10 cycles (7 months of injection and 5 months of production) over 10 years. Finally, the use of engineered caverns in the Dunhan Salt was evaluated, and the results suggest that while they have a smaller capacity (<1000 tonnes per cavern), they exhibit nearly complete gas recovery (>99%), fast response times, and low purity risk. While caverns in North Dakota may be smaller in capacity, fields can be developed in galleries to accommodate the volumetric needs and rapid turnaround times necessary to meet market demands. Geographic limitations and thin salt intervals in North Dakota may represent less total storage potential than salt domes elsewhere, but significant opportunities exist to expand this market for gas storage in North Dakota. A basinwide assessment was performed to estimate a first-of-its-kind value for H 2 storage on a large scale. DOE’s SHASTA-HELP, combined with EERC simulation work, was used to perform the assessment. Estimated H 2 storage potential varied widely for each formation type. The Broom Creek saline formation was estimated to have a storage potential of approximately 1.7–90.5 million tonnes (MMt). The DLM oil reservoirs were estimated to have 0.07–0.19 MMt of capacity. Notably, each of these estimates relies on significant assumptions regarding reservoir thickness, porosity, permeability, and CG needed for operation. Much research is needed to understand the true site-specific storage resource potential of each formation. Using the Dunham Salt Interval for cavern development may result in as much as 4.79 MMt (up to 2.87 MMt working gas) of H 2 storage potential. An important note for consideration is that the values presented here need significantly more geological characterization and engineering assessments prior to gaining confidence in performance. This will be a focal point for future research and development needs. The basinwide evaluation also indicated that North Dakota has significant H 2 generation potential, with estimates up to a possible 13 MMt annually, suggesting a substantial opportunity for H 2 market development and thus the need for commercial-scale H 2 storage to facilitate growth and resilience. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct detailed site characterization (3D seismic, well logs, core sampling) to reduce geologic uncertainty. 2. Perform techno-economic analyses incorporating market, regulatory, and incentive frameworks. 3. Investigate long-term interactions among H 2 , CGs, well materials, and formations to assess risks. 4. Develop pilot- and field-scale demonstrations to validate models and establish best practices.

03 NATURAL GAS↗