Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LICENSES”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Considerations regarding the Use of Computer Vision Machine Learning in Safety-Related or Risk-Significant Applications in Nuclear Power Plants

With the advancements made to date in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), significant potential exists to utilize AI capabilities for nuclear power plant (NPP) applications. AI can replicate human decision making and it is usually faster and more accurate than humans. For implementations that impact critical NPP applications (e.g., safety-related or non-safety systems that potentially affect overall plant risk), a deeper safety analysis of the AI methods is necessary. AI applied to NPP operations could resemble the use of digital I&C (DI&C) because such applications involve digital computer hardware and custom-designed software that input plant data, execute complex software algorithms, and output the results to a system or licensed human operator to potentially provoke an action. For AI methods to be compliant with current safety requirements for DI&C, AI compatibility must be evaluated, and AI-related gaps may exist that prevent the prompt deployment of AI in NPPs. This effort aims to evaluate how example AI technologies align with the DI&C safety framework, and discusses how they could be analyzed, modeled, tested, and validated in a manner similar to typical DI&C technologies. Because AI is a broad field that encompasses areas such as machine learning (ML), natural language processing, and computer vision, this research focused on a subset of methods categorized as the computer vision ML (CVML) methods. This report explores two CVML use cases, gauge reading and fire watch, considered relevant to the DI&C standards, as they could play a safety-critical role. For the gauge reading use case, a CVML-enabled technology that can read gauges at oblique angles is utilized. For the fire watch use case, a CVML-enabled technology is utilized that migrates fire watch from a manual (human) approach to automated fire detection. These use cases are mainly intended to give context to the CVML system discussion. This effort assumes the worst-case scenario, with the CVML system being used to replace a safety-related or risk-significant system, thus requiring evaluation. Evaluating CVML against most of the relevant safety requirements for DI&C yielded several CVML-specific considerations due to the uniqueness of its characteristics in comparison with typical DI&C systems. For example, CVML models often employ commonly used (open-source) datasets, and it is not always possible to determine the level of overlap among open-source datasets. Therefore, the independence of the developed CVML models when demonstrating diversity is questionable, therefore creating vulnerability to common cause failure (CCF). The design verification process is also impacted since the data overlap could result in overestimation of the software validation and verification (V&V) performance results. Section 2 of this report evaluates a list of the identified CVML-specific characteristics and discusses the resulting considerations and potential solutions in the context of each referenced requirement. A summation is provided in Section 3. This report is not to be used as a guideline. It was developed to identify and consider issues in the implementation of ML technologies used to augment activities that may have a bearing on plant operation. The report draws parallels to the use of DI&C technologies, for which many standards are available to guide their use in nuclear plant operation. It considers the technologies and some of the potential implications of their use in safety-related applications but is not intended to address regulatory or licensing related issues.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2023

Engineering-scale Modeling of High-Temperature Creep and Creep Crack Growth in Alloy 316H

This document demonstrates completion of the goals described in the technical narrative of the Department of Energy’s Industry Funding Opportunity Announcement (iFOA) project entitled “Modeling and Simulation Development Pathways to Accelerating KP-FHR Licensing,” which relates to the development and demonstration of capabilities for conducting engineering-scale simulations of Alloy 316H components under high-temperature conditions. This work encompassed two major aspects: integrating and testing constitutive models for the creep response of 316H at high temperatures, and developing tools for modeling creep crack growth (CCG) in 316H. Two classes of constitutive models were used in this effort: phenomenological models based on behavior observed at the engineering scale, and reduced-order models (ROMs) that represent the nonlinear response of mesoscale models that capture the sensitivity to material microstructure and processing. Likewise, the approaches employed for CCG modeling considered both simplified engineering approaches and detailed simulations of creep and damage ahead of the crack tip. These developments, which were performed by utilizing the Grizzly code as well as the open-source libraries it depends on, strengthen Grizzly’s ability to support licensing and safety analyses of high-temperature reactor components.

316H↗
DOE OSTI2024

Common Approach to Molten Salt Reactor Safety Evaluation [Slides]

The presentation describes the necessary elements of developing a common approach to molten salt reactor (MSR) safety adequacy evaluation. Developing a common approach to establishing adequate safety for MSRs could substantially decrease the developer risks. However, safety adequacy is intimately associated with reactor licensing which is an element with national sovereignty. No reactor class has a common, portable international license. The advantageous performance characteristics of MSRs can be leveraged to decrease the cost and time necessary to develop reasonable confidence of adequate safety. Adequate safety can be demonstrated though either accident prevention or mitigation. MSR have characteristics that may make accident mitigation a preferable safety adequacy evaluation approach. Adequate quality as well as a thorough understanding of accident progression validated through separate and integral effects testing remains central to any safety adequacy demonstration method.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Postclosure Criticality Analysis Results

The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy’s Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology Campaign seeks to better understand the technical basis, risks, and uncertainty associated with the safe and secure disposition of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste. Commercial nuclear power generation in the United States has resulted in thousands of metric tons of SNF, the disposal of which is the responsibility of DOE (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended). Any repository licensed to dispose of SNF must meet requirements regarding the long-term performance of that repository. The evaluation of long-term performance of the repository may need to consider the SNF achieving a critical configuration during the postclosure period. Of particular interest is the potential for this situation to occur in dual-purpose canisters (DPCs), which are currently licensed and being used to store and transport SNF but were not designed for permanent geologic disposal. DOE has been considering disposing of SNF in DPCs to avoid the costs and worker dose associated with repackaging the SNF currently stored in DPCs into repository-specific canisters. This report examines the consequences of postclosure criticality to provide technical support to DOE in developing a disposal plan.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

AquaPV: Regulatory and Environmental Considerations for Floating Photovoltaic Projects Located on Federally Controlled Reservoirs in the United States

To meet the nation's decarbonization goals, the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Futures study forecasts that installed solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity must increase nearly tenfold, from 80 gigawatts (GW) in 2020 to approximately 760 GW cumulative installed capacity by 2035. Ground-mounted PV is expected to dominate future solar deployment and will require more than 3.5 million acres of land to meet annual demand projections (of nearly 45 GW) by 2030. However, various competing demands for land (e.g., agricultural production, conservation) and high land acquisition costs in specific locations could be challenges to meeting future PV demand solely with ground-mounted PV deployment. Floating photovoltaics (FPV) may be an alternative in locations where ground-mounted PV is not feasible and aid in reaching the nation's PV deployment and decarbonization goals. FPV is a newer siting approach in which a PV array is affixed to a floating apparatus and sited on a water body like a reservoir behind a dam. FPV systems may be stand-alone or co-located at new or existing hydroelectric facilities or pumped storage hydropower (PSH) facility reservoirs. Co-located FPV systems may or may not be operationally paired and work in tandem with the hydroelectric or PSH facility. This report provides novel analysis to understand the opportunities and challenges associated with developing stand-alone and co-located FPV projects on reservoirs in the United States. Specifically, the report explores potential environmental and energy benefits and environmental impacts associated with the siting, construction, and operation of FPV projects. The report also identifies and analyzes U.S. federal- and state-issued permits and authorizations required by federal laws to understand the licensing pathways and regulatory requirements for FPV projects sited on reservoirs licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and on powered and non-powered reservoirs owned by the Bureau of Reclamation or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Analysis of Transient Postclosure Criticality

The United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy’s Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology Campaign seeks to better understand the technical basis, risks, and uncertainty associated with the safe and secure disposition of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste. Commercial nuclear power generation in the United States has resulted in thousands of metric tons of SNF, the disposal of which is the responsibility of the DOE (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended). Any repository licensed to dispose of SNF must meet requirements regarding the long-term performance of that repository. For an evaluation of the long-term performance of the repository, one of the events that may need to be considered is the SNF achieving a critical configuration during the postclosure period. Of particular interest is the potential behavior of SNF in dual-purpose canisters (DPCs), which are currently licensed and being used to store and transport SNF but were not designed for permanent geologic disposal.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Experimental Validation of Thermal Hydraulic Behavior in Sodium Fast Reactors (SFR) with the Thermal Hydraulic Experimental Test Article (THETA)

Thermal stratification and transition to natural circulation pose two of the largest sources of uncertainty in systems-level modeling of liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. As these phenomena typically develop during transient event sequences, licensing-basis events analyzed using systemslevel models may have considerable uncertainties associated with thermal-hydraulic parameters of the system to account for these phenomena. As a result, the validation basis for these phenomena for systems-level codes is insufficient to fully support the wide range of liquid metal fast reactors being developed in the US. Currently, the most viable path for licensing a design is to take significant conservatisms and maintain sufficiently large safety margins to account for this uncertainty.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Method for Real-Time Salt Aerosol Concentration and Size Measurements for Molten Salt Reactor Safety Assessments

Licensing a new nuclear reactor involves evaluating credible accident scenarios by developing models that simulate accident progression to predict possible outcomes and their impact on safety. The formation of radionuclide-bearing aerosols in the respirable size range can significantly affect dose consequence and threaten human health and is therefore a focus of nuclear reactor safety assessments. Recent reviews of the literature identified a lack of existing experimental data describing the mechanisms of formation and properties (size, concentration, and composition) of radionuclide-bearing aerosols that may be produced from molten salt reactor (MSR) facilities during postulated accident scenarios. Experiments on aerosol formation from molten salt systems are a high priority need that will support MSR licensing by indicating the radiological consequences of aerosol formation and providing the data required for model development and validation. The evolving conditions that occur during a MSR accident, such as a spill of molten fuel salt, may affect aerosol formation mechanisms and aerosol properties over time. There is a need to conduct experiments that simulate credible MSR accidents in a laboratory to generate aerosols with realistic characteristics and behaviors and a need to measure these aerosols in real time under accident-relevant conditions. This report describes the development of a method that can be used to quantify the size and concentration of salt aerosol particles that form from molten salt systems in real time. This method will be employed in future integral effects tests that are conducted at an engineering scale to simulate realistic MSR accidents and in future separate effects tests that will provide mechanistic insight into aerosol formation and properties to support process model development.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Simulator Data Analysis to Inform Digitalized Environment Impacts on Human Reliability

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has developed a human reliability analysis (HRA) method, termed the Integrated Human Event Analysis System for Event and Condition Assessment (IDHEAS-ECA), in order to estimate human error probabilities (HEPs) in risk-informed regulatory applications. To update the quantification part of IDHEAS-ECA, the NRC required human performance and error data from fully digitalized main control rooms (MCRs); therefore, it requested that Idaho National Laboratory (INL) revisit previous data collection studies and investigate how the following three factors impact human reliability: self-checking, peer-checking, and automation. The HRA data collection studies revisited were the Human Reliability Data Extraction (HuREX) project, developed by the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), and the Simplified Human Error Experimental Program (SHEEP), developed by INL. HuREX is a representative HRA data collection study that collects human reliability data from full-scope simulators staffed by licensed operators. SHEEP, on the other hand, has been proposed to complement such full-scope studies by collecting data via simplified simulators staffed by non-licensed student operators. In the HuREX study, KAERI collected HRA data from fully digitalized MCRs for the Advanced Power Reactor (APR)–1400. The SHEEP data were obtained from simplified simulators that partially mimicked the features of digitalized MCRs. The present report mainly discusses how the impacts of the aforementioned three factors on human errors were derived from these two data collection studies.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2025

EMP - Environmental Radiological Air Monitoring Plan: PNNL Operations in Washington

The Environmental Radiological Air Monitoring Plan (EMP) for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) describes systems/processes/practices related to radiological operations in Richland and Sequim, Washington, that are associated with environmental radiological air monitoring and surveillance activities. The activities described support the lab’s responsibility to maintain safe operations and minimize negative impacts to both onsite and offsite persons and environment. Dose assessments required by regulations and DOE Orders for the public and biota are described. PNNL conducts environmental air surveillance monitoring as part of the PNNL Site Radioactive Air Emissions License (RAEL)-005 for Richland Campus, issued in 2010 with its most recent renewal effective in January 2021. The radioactive air emissions license for the PNNL-Sequim campus (RAEL-014) was issued to the U.S. Department of Energy in 2012 with its most recent renewal effective in January 2023. The EMP is a compilation of the following four documents: - Environmental Radiological Air Monitoring Plan (this main document) (PNNL-20919) - Sampling and Analysis Plan (Attachment 1) (PNNL-20919-1) - Data Management Plan (Attachment 2) (PNNL-20919-2) - Dose Assessment Guidance (Attachment 3) (PNNL-20919-3).

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗
DOE OSTI2025

Polaris-PARCS Sensitivity Study on LWR Fuel Cycles: Polaris Input Options

This study is the first of a multi-phase effort to assess the sensitivity of light-water reactor (LWR) core-level prediction biases to changes in lattice-level calculation parameters. Prediction bias is the measured-to-predicted difference in a core-level quantity of interest (QOI) which can be estimated by comparing the simulation results with the plant-measured data for key nuclear parameters. The LWR two-step neutronics codes employed herein are the SCALE–Polaris lattice physics code (v6.3.1) and the Purdue Advanced Reactor Core Simulator (PARCS) nodal diffusion simulator (v3.4.2), both funded and used for confirmatory analysis to support licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Polaris–PARCS is used to model Watts Bar Unit 1 cycles 1–3 and Peach Bottom Unit 2 cycles 1–3. This study focuses on the impact of changes to Polaris input options such as scattering treatment or quadrature settings and how these input options induce changes in core-level quantities of interest (QOIs)bias. The report documents multiple bias assessments for different modeling choices and compares the bias magnitude to the QOI measurement uncertainties. Future companion reports will investigate the sensitivity of core-level LWR prediction bias to Polaris input options and Polaris-computed QOIs such as few-group assembly-homogenized cross sections to gain an understanding of the key drivers of prediction bias at lattice and core levels for application of a two-step LWR neutronics procedure in a licensing scenario.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Accident Progression and Source Term Demonstration Calculations for the Advanced Burner Test Reactor (ABTR)

As advanced reactor designers approach broad deployment of new reactor technologies and the associated applications, a critical milestone on this path includes licensing or authorization of these designs in the current regulatory environment. Commercial licensing and DOE authorization both consist of numerous aspects to not only certify the designed plant will operate as intended, but also related to confirmation of the safe operation of these facilities that comply with specific standards and requirements. To that end, domestic industry and regulators require toolsets and methods which can be used to confirm that advanced reactor designs not only align with expected performance during normal operation, but also a series of transient scenarios. These codes require a satisfactory validation basis, and in the absence of such a basis, code-to-code comparisons are often utilized as a surrogate to confirm model adequacy. To support this need for fast reactor technologies, a series of analyses using SAS4A/SASSYS- 1 and the Simplified Radionuclide Transport (SRT) code have been conducted for the Advanced Burner Test Reactor (ABTR). These analyses are expected to not only provide a baseline for transient and source term analyses of ABTR, but to also provide context for the key physics that determine evolution of specific transient scenarios in a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR). These codes are utilized for this work given their adoption in the SFR industry and by key SFR stakeholders.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Engineered Solutions Group's SMR Containment Cable and Electrical Penetration Assembly System

GAIN Project CRADA Number NFE-21-08839, entitled “SMR Containment Cable and EPA System” was initiated by the partnership of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Engineered Solutions Group (ESG) to test an ESG-designed Electrical Penetration Assembly and Containment Cabling System Qualified for not only legacy LWR designs, but also Small Modular Reactors designs currently being designed by several different suppliers. This project was undertaken to fill the equipment gap of EPA and Cabling Systems that require much more severe environmental requirements than legacy plant applications present due to their smaller containment volumes that result in high energy densities compared to legacy designs. This high energy density results in severe accident environments and more severe normal operating conditions as well. We developed two approaches to qualify Electrical Penetration Assembly (EPA) and Containment Cabling Systems for SMRs and Advanced Reactors. We take into consideration the more severe environmental parameters found with SMR designs. The system will need to meet a qualification test program addressing wear/cyclic aging, potential radiation exposure, thermal aging, vibration aging, thermal cycling, seismic qualification, electrical fault testing (per IEEE 317) and accident simulation. The equipment must meet the requirements of 10CFR50.49, GDC 50 in 10CFR50 Appendix A, and 10CFR50 Appendix J. NRC Regulatory Guides (RGs) identify an acceptable way of meeting regulatory requirements. RGs frequently endorse a standard for meeting these requirements. Specific to this review, equipment would be qualified in accordance with the following IEEE Standards. • IEEE 317-2013 (Electrical Penetration Assemblies), which is endorsed by RG 1.63, Rev. 3, • IEEE 323-2003 and the more current IEC/IEEE 60780-323 (Environmental Qualification of 1E Equipment) which is endorsed by RG 1.89. IEEE 323-2003 is endorsed by RG 1.209, • IEEE 344-2020 (Seismic Qualification. The 2013 version endorsed by RG 1.100, Rev. 4, with exceptions), • IEEE 383-2015 (Electrical Cables) (which is endorsed by RG 1.189 Rev. 4 and the -2003 version endorsed by RG 1.211 rev. 0), • IEEE 572-2019 (Electrical Connectors and Assemblies), which is endorsed by 1.156 Rev 1, and • [IEEE 1202 (endorsed by RG 1.189) would normally be applicable but the advanced cable designs are impervious to this cable flame test.] The primary goal of such a program is to provide an EPA design that can meet the qualification requirements for all legacy light water reactor plants currently operating as well as new plant designs including light water Small Modular Reactors. Thus, these requirements are applicable to plants licensed under 10CFR50 and 10CFR52. Other reactor designs may be evaluated, and this test system and qualification method applied to those applications if the requirements would satisfy the requirements of the intended plant. A secondary benefit of this work is to document some of the history and background in these requirements as there have been recent delays in an SMR licensing process due to NRC Requests for Additional Information in this subject matter area.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Summary of Analytical Services for the Hanford Site Radionuclide NESHAP Program

This document is a summary of the point source analytical requirements used to demonstrate compliance for the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site operations with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (NESHAP) Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,” and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247, “Radiation Protection – Air Emissions.” This reference collects information from multiple source documents and is not intended to create, supersede, replace or over-ride any existing contractual, DOE, federal or state statutes, regulations, compliance agreements, orders, permits, licenses or other requirements. The requirement source document governs where any difference may exist. The Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) Environmental organization has been contracted by DOE to manage and report data collected from the sampling and monitoring of radioactive air emissions point sources, colloquially called stacks. The Environmental organization coordinates the analyses and reporting of samples collected at various facilities across the Hanford Site. These facilities operate approximately 52 stacks that require sampling, monitoring or estimating radioactive air emissions. The stacks are operated by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), Central Plateau Cleanup Company (CPCCo), Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure (H2C), Hanford Laboratory Management and Integration (HLMI), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Stack samples from CPCCo, HLMI and H2C facilities are collected by the operating contractor staff, delivered to HMIS, and then shipped to an offsite contracted laboratory for analyses. The field and laboratory sample data uploaded into the Sample Management and Analytical Results Tracking (SMART) database are used to calculate sample volumes and concentrations. Sample concentrations are evaluated for compliance with federal and state regulations, permits, and license requirements. The SMART database also calculates total curies released for sampled point sources and stacks. Point source effluent concentrations and releases are published annually in publicly available reports. The BNI and PNNL operate several DOE-Hanford Field Office (HFO) stacks subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 61, Subpart H and WAC 246-247. The concentrations, curies released and dose modeling evaluation for these stacks are included in the DOE-HFO annual radionuclide NESHAP report. The sample collection, analyses and emissions estimates for these stacks are outside the scope of HMIS contracted responsibilities and not addressed further in this document.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Plan for the Development and Application of a Risk Assessment Approach for Transportation Package Approval of a Transportable Nuclear Power Plant for Maritime Shipment (Rev. 1)

This plan proposes a strategy for licensing a transportable nuclear power plant, containing its unirradiated and irradiated fuel, as a transportation package for maritime transport using a probabilistic risk assessment framework in order to meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 71. It is anticipated that initially, the deterministic transportation package licensing approach will be challenging due to the functional requirements of the transportable nuclear power plant. As such, a partial exemption request from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission coupled with applied compensatory measures are anticipated in support of providing equivalent safety to the public, worker, and environment. A plan is outlined as to how this would be demonstrated and a pathway is primarily outlined using the accompanying low accident rates which in turn support very low probabilities of release for a maritime application. Wherever possible, the proposed plan is supported by actual accident (casualty) data. Additional supporting information regarding a highway transportation probabilistic risk assessment in support of the Project Pele demonstration reactor that is currently under development is also referenced and discussed.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates

In 2009, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) directed the NRC staff to address climate change issues and consider the impacts of the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions (NRC 2009b). To implement this direction from the Commission, the staff issued guidance in 2011 and updated guidance in 2014 in Attachment 1 to Interim Staff Guidance COL/ESP-ISG-026 (NRC 2011; NRC 2014). This guidance provides a simpler method than the method described in RG 4.2 Rev. 3, that an applicant can use to meet the plant parameter envelope (PPE) value from the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NR GEIS). NRC staff estimated the 97-year lifecycle GHG emissions from a reference 1000 megawatt electrical (MWe) light-water reactor (LWR) for various activities associated with construction, operation (including uranium fuel cycle), and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and presented the results in Appendix H of the NR GEIS. Appendix H of the NR GEIS includes estimates of direct emissions from construction equipment and emergency diesel engines in a nuclear facility and indirect emissions from workforce vehicular traffic, fuel transportation and the uranium fuel cycle. The NR GEIS Section 3.3 extended the estimates in Appendix H for the installation of two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors on the same site. Scaling factors were used to extrapolate the GHG emissions of a reference 1000 MWe reactor to a two-unit nuclear reactor plant (each reactor unit generating 1000 MWe). GHG emission estimates for building, operation, decommissioning and safe storage (SAFSTOR) for a two-unit nuclear reactor plant would be based on the plant’s physical size, and therefore estimates for these source categories were assumed to be twice the value of the reference 1000 MWe reactor. However, GHG emissions from the fuel cycle (including fuel transportation) were scaled upward by a factor of 3, based on plant efficiencies greater than the 80 percent assumption in Appendix H. Table 1 below shows the PPE emissions for two 1000 MWe nuclear reactors as provided in NR GEIS. The total GHG emissions for two 1000 MWe reactors were calculated as 2,534,000 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 (e)) based on a 97 year GHG life cycle period. The GHG emissions lifetime of 97 years for a reference nuclear reactor includes a 7-year building phase, 40 years of operation, 10 years of active decommissioning, and 40 years of SAFSTOR operations (NRC 2024). Construction equipment and vehicular traffic from workers commute would contribute to the GHG emissions during a 7-year building phase. Uranium fuel cycle, vehicular traffic, fuel and waste transportation, and testing of standby diesel generators would contribute to GHG emissions during the 40-year operations phase. While NRC’s regulations allow up to 60 years of reactor facility decommissioning, Appendix H estimated that most of the GHGs would occur over an estimated 10-year period during which to the licensee would engage in significant demolition and earth-moving activities, as discussed in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Vehicular traffic by the workforce during a 40-year SAFSTOR period would additionally contribute GHG emissions. The carbon footprint for a 40-year SAFSTOR period was separately analyzed from the decommissioning activities as provided in Table YYYY-2 of the staff issued guidance in 2011 (NRC 2011).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management 2024 Annual Site Inspection and Monitoring Report for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title I Disposal Sites

This report, in fulfillment of a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license requirement, presents the results of long-term surveillance and maintenance activities conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) in 2024. These activities occurred at the 19 uranium mill tailings disposal sites established under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) and verify that the UMTRCA Title I disposal sites remain in compliance with license requirements and Long-Term Surveillance Plans (LTSPs). Individual chapters for each site are available on the LM public website at https://energy.gov/lm/sites/lm-sites.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Proposed Classifications of Remote Operations for Nuclear Reactors Based on Physical and Cybersecurity Considerations

The incorporation of remote operations into reactor operations is a topic of high interest among advanced and small modular reactor (A/SMR) vendors, with some considering it essential to the success of their business models. However, remote operations are a concept novel to the nuclear industry. While various technical aspects of remote operations have been explored, a significant gap remains in understanding the security implications of integrating remote operations into reactor designs, particularly concerning the security requirements for remote-operations facilities and infrastructure. This report aims to address this gap by first defining classes of remote operation based on the extent of remote access to reactor control systems and grounded in the existing regulatory framework with compatible terminology. Secondly, the report outlines the physical and cybersecurity requirements applicable to remote-operations facilities and infrastructure at each defined class. These requirements are based on existing licensing frameworks provided by 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 52, as well as the upcoming A/SMR licensing framework in the proposed Part 53. The assessment focuses specifically on security regulations, such as 10 CFR Part 73, which includes provisions for both cybersecurity (§ 73.54) and physical security (§ 73.55). This report proposes five classes of remote reactor operations. Class 1 involves remote monitoring only, with no control over reactor systems. Class 2 allows for the remote issuance of allowlisted commands to the reactor facility. Class 3 extends control to non-safety-significant, non-safety-related, or not important to safety systems and equipment. Class 4 permits remote control of safety-significant systems. Finally, Class 5 allows remote control of safety-related systems. It is important to note that these classes were defined purely with functionality in mind, without considering the practicality or feasibility of implementation for each class under current or upcoming regulatory guidance. The intention behind this approach is to enable an assessment of which security requirements apply to each class, allowing readers to evaluate the implementation possibilities for their specific use cases. Following the definition of remote-operation classes, the report assesses the specific physical and cybersecurity requirements applicable to the remote-operations facility and infrastructure within each defined class. This includes defining the types and locations of operators that are possible at each class of operation and, based on operator type and location, as well as functionality within each class, outlining the physical and cybersecurity requirements. By detailing the security requirements by class, the report provides readers with the information needed to determine the type of security program they may need to implement for their desired concept of operation. The next contribution of this report was to assess the practicality of implementing each proposed class of remote operations based upon the security requirement assessment. In short, three of the five proposed remote-operation classes were found to possibly have a practical path forward to implementation under the U.S. regulatory framework. Class 1 remote operations are currently in use in the U.S. while Class 2 and 3 remote operations may be logistically possible to implement under the U.S. regulatory framework. The final two Classes, 4 and 5, would likely be logistically difficult, if not infeasible to implement within the current U.S. physical- and cybersecurity regulatory framework. Given the results of the feasibility assessment, an example architecture is proposed for both Class 2, remote allowlisted commands, and Class 3, remote control of non-safety systems as well as security implication assessments of each architecture. These example implementations are not meant to be prescriptive in terms of how Class 2 or Class 3 remote operations should be deployed; instead, they are intended to be informative to stakeholders on how Class 2 or Class 3 could potentially be applied in order to inform their system design. An example architecture for Class 1 remote monitoring was not provided as Class 1 in already in use in U.S. nuclear operations. Example architectures for Class 4 and Class 5 were not provided due to their assessment of being likely infeasible to implement. The final contribution is an assessment of the physical- and cybersecurity implications of introducing autonomous operations into an A/SMR. What was found was that the security implications can be separated into two cases. Autonomous operations supported by SSCs located only at the reactor site, and autonomous operations supported by SSCs outside of the reactor site. For the first case, the introduction of autonomous systems will likely not change the facility’s requirement to comply with existing cyber and physical security regulation

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗