Results for “Regulatory documents” — Page 19

DOE OSTI2022

AERMOD Screening Dispersion Factors for INL Facilities

This engineering calculations and analysis report (ECAR) documents the calculation of screening level air dispersion factors (DFs) for use in identifying Idaho National Laboratory (INL) air pollutant sources that would not be of concern relative to state of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) significant impact levels for toxic air pollutants (IDAPA 2020). A DF (in units of s/m 3 ) is the maximum time-averaged model-predicted air concentration (g/m 3 ) at an ambient-air receptor location divided by a unit source release or emission rate (1 g/s). DFs were calculated for a generic pollutant released from facilities at the INL Site and the Idaho Falls Research Education Campus (REC) using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended AERMOD air-dispersion model (EPA 2019a) and site-specific meteorological data. The use of AERMOD for air quality analyses is specified by EPA in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51, Guideline on Air Quality Models, and by DEQ in their air modeling guidance (DEQ 2013). DFs were calculated for 1-hour, 3 hour, 8-hour, 24-hour, monthly, and annual averaging times.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Overview of the Electrification of Transportation in Hawaii

This document is a summary of electric vehicle (EV) experiences in Hawaii. It is meant to be informative but does not present any new technical analysis except for the development of key lessons learned that could be applied in similar contexts. The electrification of transportation is essential for Hawaii's energy goal. An electrification of transportation strategy complements other energy policy goals, increases clean energy impacts, and provides customer value. By the end of 2020, there were over 12,000 EVs registered in Hawaii (about 1 percent of all cars). That number is expected to grow, based on the results from recent surveys and studies in Hawaii. Surveys pointed out the need for more charging stations, especially in places where people do business or park for long periods of the day. Participation in controlled charging programs should have attractive incentives since a majority of EV owners would not be willing to interrupt their EV charging for demand response. Various studies have confirmed the EV potential in Hawaii. For example, the JUMPSmart Maui demonstration project, a public-private partnership with Japan, helped to establish the EV charging station infrastructure in Maui and provided important information about charging behaviors. A critical backbone study commissioned by the utility recommended that 3,600 public chargers be installed by 2030 on the five islands, which confirms the need for infrastructure improvements expressed in earlier surveys. The process that emerged in Hawaii can be an example to other locations, which could heed the lessons from Hawaii's EV experiences: The importance of an overarching energy goal/objective based on a shared vision; planning and pilot projects; a strategic plan (roadmap) leveraging on initial experiences; evaluation of the effectiveness/success of actions; fine-tuning as needed; close regulatory oversight and stakeholder participation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2023

SCALE 6.2 Lattice Physics Performance Assessment

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission relies on the lattice physics analysis capabilities of the SCALE code system to perform confirmatory licensing analyses. Either SCALE lattice physics code—TRITON/NEWT or Polaris—can be used to generate cross section data used by the PARCS nodal core simulator for full-core neutronics calculations. This report presents an assessment of the accuracy of SCALE lattice physics codes for preparation of lattice physics data that are used to support simulator codes such as the NRC’s PARCS, for UO 2 -mixed oxide (MOX)/Zr fueled light water reactor (LWR) analyses. Due to the nature of lattice physics calculations, critical reactor experiment benchmarks cannot be modeled in explicit detail in a lattice physics code. However, this limitation does not mean that these measurement data are not usable for lattice physics studies. Therefore, either geometry approximations or axial buckling must be implemented to determine the critical water height. These modeling limitations have led to development of a three-phase assessment strategy. In the first phase, selected critical experiment benchmarks are modeled using the SCALE 3D continuous-energy (CE) Monte Carlo (MC) code KENO, which is the most rigorous neutron transport method available in SCALE, with no approximations in the spatial, angle, or energy treatments. Biases and statistical uncertainties in quantities of interest such as k eff and pin power distributions are determined by comparing CE KENO results to experimental data. This first phase in the accuracy assessment is to demonstrate and establish the use of CE KENO as a reference solution for the second phase. In the second phase, 14 numerical test suites are used to compare SCALE lattice physics calculations with CE KENO as a reference solution. In the third phase, SCALE lattice physics depletion calculations are performed, and the spent fuel isotopic results are compared with available radiochemical assay measurements. Isotopic measurement comparisons provide quantitative assessment of isotopic density distribution predictions with the depletion models in SCALE lattice physics codes. This report documents results for all test suites. The assessment was performed using standard production techniques unless otherwise noted. Both TRITON/NEWT and Polaris exhibited acceptable accuracy for most test cases. For the few test cases in which acceptable accuracy criteria were not met, further code and data development are planned. The computer codes used in this assessment are as follows: SCALE 6.2 rev19189 (pre-release of 6.2.1) was used for CE KENO, TRITON/NEWT and Polaris (PWR only) calculations; SCALE 6.2.2 was used for Polaris calculations to address several updates in support of support boiling water reactor (BWR) lattice geometries. For this work, there is no difference between SCALE 6.2.1 and SCALE 6.2.2 beyond the inclusion of the Polaris BWR analysis capability; The ENDF/B-VII.1 continuous energy and 252 group libraries deployed in SCALE 6.2 were generated with AMPX 6.2 that is distributed with SCALE.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Site Integration and Regulatory Considerations for an NPP Colocated with 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 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 OSTI2020

Automated Data Review of Analytical Laboratory Results at Los Alamos National Laboratory - 20299

Newport News Nuclear BWXT-Los Alamos, LLC (N3B) collects samples in support of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract (LLCC). N3B receives and reviews over 1.6 million sample data points annually in support of various ongoing environmental monitoring and remediation projects of the LLCC. N3B must demonstrate and document that reported external analytical laboratory data produced for the LLCC are of sufficient quality to fulfill their intended purpose and to support defensible decision making as described in EPA QA/G4 Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process 1994. In 2018, N3B assumed management of the LLCC along with the Environmental Information Management (EIM) database that contains all historical and current environmental data associated with the LLCC. The entire EIM database is shared between N3B, Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). These three parties jointly manage the database, its configuration, and changes / updates. All environmental data that are entered into EIM are updated and available, on a daily basis, in the linked public database Intellus New Mexico (Intellus). The quality and defensibility of the environmental data generated from sampling activities is a key component of an effective remediation process. Providing quality data is accomplished through a data assessment process that includes examination, verification, and validation. Examination is the assessment of completeness of the deliverables, identification of any reporting errors, and determining the usability of the data based on the laboratory's evaluation of its data as described in the case narrative received with the data. Verification consists of an evaluation of the Electronic Data Deliverables (EDD) data report to determine the extent to which the external analytical laboratories met method and contract-specific quality control and reporting requirements. Validation consists of determining the data quality and the extent to which the external analytical laboratories accurately and completely reported all sample and quality control results and satisfied all contract requirements. EIM contains an automatic Data Validation Module which performs automated data review (DVM ADR). DVM ADR is a tool to assist in the validation process. When DVM ADR is used in conjunction with manual examination of sample data packages, the combination of the two will meet and exceed the requirements of verification. N3B recognized an opportunity for process improvement, focusing on DVM ADR configuration and enhancements in EIM. Testing EIM's configuration provided proof of the DVM ADR's capabilities and flexibility to accurately perform routine data checks based on analytical methods and regulatory requirements. In addition, the DVM ADR module was improved through enhancements for all analytes, particularly upgrades for radiochemistry data. Extensive testing of the DVM ADR module occurred using EDDs from actual laboratory analyses on the EIM testing site. During this process, N3B manipulated EDD information to verify that the actual outcomes matched the expected outcomes. The results of this testing were shared with the database architects, and configuration improvements were identified to address these results. During this process, N3B identified that the radiochemical DVM ADR capabilities were underutilized, and so enhanced the DVM ADR functionality with respect to radioanalytical assessment. N3B environmental data uploads to Intellus on a daily basis from EIM, once the analytical data undergoes examination and verification. As such, it is important to have a high level of confidence in the quality and defensibility of the data. The process of manual examination, along with the DVM ADR, in conjunction with full validation of a percentage the data specified through the Data Quality Objectives greatly increases efficiency of data review and confidence level of the quality of the data, and gives the project managers, governmental offices, and the public expedited access to high-quality data. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

U.S. Solar Siting Regulation and Zoning Ordinances (2025)

A machine readable collection of documented solar siting ordinances at the state and local (e.g., county, township) level throughout the United States. The data were compiled using the Infrastructure Continuous Ordinance Mapping for Planning and Siting Systems (INFRA-COMPASS) tool, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the collection of local codes and ordinances applicable to energy infrastructure. URLs for the ordinance source documents are included in the Solar Ordinances spreadsheet. The GeoPackage file included below contains the jurisdiction shapes for each ordinance. Note that the GeoPackage file is formatted for ingestion by NLR's reVX setbacks tool and therefore does not contain any of the state-level regulations. NOTE: This data was collected with the help of generative AI. The Large Language Models used for this effort make mistakes. Always validate the data for critical use cases. This data is an update to a previously developed database of wind ordinances found in OEDI Submission 5734: see the "U.S. Solar Siting Regulation and Zoning Ordinances 2022" link below. INFRA-COMPASS version used for collection: v0.11.3 LLMs used for collection: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, GPT-4.1 nano

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

U.S. Wind Siting Regulation and Zoning Ordinances (2025)

A machine readable collection of documented wind siting ordinances at the state and local (e.g., county, township) level throughout the United States. The data were compiled using the Infrastructure Continuous Ordinance Mapping for Planning and Siting Systems (INFRA-COMPASS) tool, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the collection of local codes and ordinances applicable to energy infrastructure. URLs for the ordinance source documents are included in the Wind Ordinances spreadsheet. The GeoPackage file included below contains the jurisdiction shapes for each ordinance. Note that the GeoPackage file is formatted for ingestion by NREL's reVX setbacks tool and therefore does not contain any of the state-level regulations. NOTE: This data was collected with the help of generative AI. The Large Language Models used for this effort make mistakes. Always validate the data for critical use cases. This data is an update to a previously developed database of wind ordinances found in OEDI Submission 5733: see the "U.S. Wind Siting Regulation and Zoning Ordinances 2022" link below. INFRA-COMPASS version used for collection: v0.8.2 LLMs used for collection: GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, GPT-4.1 nano, GPT-4o mini

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

U.S. Efforts in Support of Examinations at Fukushima Daiichi - September 2024 Meeting Notes

Information obtained from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Daiichi) is required to inform future Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) activities, improving the ability of the Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated (TEPCO Holdings) to characterize potential hazards and to ensure the safety of workers involved with cleanup activities. This information also has important implications for the safety and operation of U.S. Commercial nuclear power plants. A collaborative U.S. and Japanese effort was initiated in 2014 by the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy to identify Daiichi examination needs and evaluate recent Daiichi examination data to address these needs. This document summarizes information presented at and findings, action items, and recommendations by U.S. and Japanese experts in reactor safety and plant operations during the September 2024 Forensics Effort meeting. Significant safety insights were obtained in several areas: system and component performance, radionuclide surveys and sampling, debris end-state location, combustible gas effects, and plant operations and maintenance. In addition to reducing uncertainties and knowledge gaps in severe accident modeling progression, these insights continue to be used to assess whether additional updates are needed in guidance for severe accident prevention, mitigation, and emergency planning. Furthermore, Daiichi-related activities, such as code modeling improvements and analysis, testing, and new technology deployment efforts, have the potential to offer additional safety and economic benefits to the operating fleet and new light water reactor (LWR) and non-LWR designs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Subtask 1.3 – Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage for North Dakota Ethanol Production

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Red Trail Energy, LLC (RTE), a North Dakota ethanol producer; the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Renewable Energy Program (REP); and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), conducted a feasibility and implementation study for a commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) effort. This subtask provided technical support and developed recommended practices of how small-scale industrial CO2 emitters (<1,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted annually) may economically deploy CCS. The 64-million-gallon dry mill RTE ethanol facility, emitting an average 180,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, was the subject of the case study. The positive outcome of this research, which shows technical and economic potential for ethanol–CCS in North Dakota, has resulted in RTE acquiring an approved Permit to Drill on December 2, 2019, for a stratigraphic test well in early 2020, a necessary step toward a North Dakota CO2 Storage Facility Permit (SFP) for the RTE CCS effort. Outcomes include 1) validating the Broom Creek Formation as a regional target for CCS, 2) determining the full carbon life cycle of an industrial fuel production facility with CCS, 3) developing a field implementation plan (FIP) for small-scale CCS, and 4) determining the validity and pathway for using CCS to meet low-carbon fuel (LCF) standards. The technical team included the EERC, RTE, Trimeric Corporation, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and Computer Modelling Group (CMG). Findings from activities conducted November 2016 – May 2020 are summarized as follows. Several key steps have been accomplished toward validating the Broom Creek Formation as a CO2 injection and storage target at the RTE CCS site, including verification of the presence and structure of sandstone layers that may comprise the potential CO2 storage reservoir and the several thousand feet of overlying confining zone. Work included site characterization using existing data, interpretation of seismic data within the study area, and geologic modeling simulation of CO2 injection. Interpreted results estimate 3000 feet of confining zone between the Broom Creek Formation (storage target) and the lowermost underground source of drinking water (e.g., the Fox Hills Formation). The thickness of the Broom Creek injection target varies 230–420 ft within the survey area. Results were used to inform the location of a stratigraphic test well and associated characterization test program. No impediments were identified within the targeted CO2 storage complex that would prevent the project from moving forward. A stratigraphic test well is the next step to validate these results and to acquire remaining data necessary to develop a North Dakota CO2 SFP application. The EERC generated full carbon life cycle estimates for CCS integration with the RTE ethanol facility. Results indicated that an average 40% reduction in CO2 emissions is possible through CCS implementation. Approximately half of the carbon in the overall life cycle for a dry mill ethanol plant is generated through the fermentation process and emitted to the atmosphere; this is the CO2 stream targeted for CCS. The remaining carbon is attributed to corn feedstock farming (diesel, fertilizer), energy for fuel processing (natural gas, electricity), and transportation (diesel) of the fuel product. Life cycle carbon estimates are also affected by the anticipated energy consumption of a potential capture facility, which depend on the type of CO2 product generated. For example, a 30%–40% net CO2 emission reduction is estimated if a liquefied CO2 facility were incorporated compared to a 40%–50% net CO2 reduction if a supercritical “injection-grade” CO2 product is generated; i.e., more energy is required to further refine the CO2 stream, affecting the full carbon life cycle estimates. A CCS FIP was developed and initiated at the RTE CCS site, resulting in the development of several guidance documents: a CO2 Capture Process Design Package, a North Dakota CO2 geologic Storage Permits Template, and a Public Outreach Package for CCS in North Dakota. General FIP components include CO2 capture system, pipeline and well designs; monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) plans; geologic characterization and testing programs; and permitting and outreach plans. Vendor bids were also acquired for the CO2 liquefaction facility. Near-surface characterization (groundwater and soil gas sampling) and geologic characterization (seismic survey) were initiated to inform development of a UIC Class VI-compliant MVA plan compliant with a North Dakota CO2 SFP. Designs (well and geologic testing) were completed for a stratigraphic test well compliant with a North Dakota CO2 SFP. In addition, the outreach plan was executed, including community open houses, meetings with city/county/state officials, and development of public materials. Although other entities continued to mature incentive programs in 2019–2020, California and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently provide the most advanced economic opportunities for CCS integrated with fuel production. The California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) adopted a CCS Protocol in January 2019, allowing submittal of a design-based pathway (DBP) application for an approved temporary (not certified) carbon intensity value for a fully engineered facility. An ethanol–CCS DBP application to the California LCFS Program (officially approved February 28, 2020) was developed to show that the RTE CCS effort meets LCFS requirements. The approved DBP provides confidence to advance the project and supports potential investments. Other entities continue to mature incentive programs. The IRS issued guidance in February 2020 that addresses the definition of beginning of construction and revenue procedure on partnerships for the Enhancement of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Credit (a.k.a. Section 45Q) CCS tax credit program; the IRS anticipates issuing further guidance on issues such as secure geologic storage, utilization qualifications, and recapture of claimed credits. Maturing incentive programs coupled with workable permitting regulations provide confidence to advance CCS projects in North Dakota and support financial investment to proceed with designing, constructing, and implementing CCS projects at small-scale fuel production facilities. The largest hurdles for CCS implementation at small-scale industrial systems are often business/economic-related (i.e., not technical). Market uncertainty already exists for agriculture-based alternative fuels such as corn ethanol, for which production has increased by ~33%, and prices have correspondingly lowered since 2015. Passing the Section 45Q tax credit program improves economic feasibility for CCS but may require external investors for a small business to achieve maximum benefits. Public–private partnerships with NDIC and DOE have resulted in foundational technical and regulatory knowledge, growing stakeholder confidence, and a pathway to implementation that enables similar industrial CCS projects in the region to advance. This subtask was funded through the EERC–DOE Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by NDIC and RTE. The authors would also like to thank CMG, ESRI, IHS, Neuralog, and Schlumberger for allowing the use of their software packages in support of this work.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Diversion Path Analysis: A Proposed Methodology to Develop an MC&A Approach for Liquid-Fueled Molten Salt Reactors

Nuclear material control and accounting (MC&A) is a critical element of both the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and US Department of Energy (DOE)’s domestic safeguards and security requirements. NRC licensees are required, under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 74 to establish and maintain an MC&A program that captures and records the quantities and locations of special nuclear material (SNM) at the facility. Along with physical protection, MC&A is a key element of domestic nuclear material safeguards that enables the NRC to ensure that SNM is controlled and accounted for. SNM, per 10 CFR Part 74, refers to plutonium, 233 U, and uranium enriched in the isotope 233 U or 235 U, but does not include source material. Periodic physical inventories, coupled with material balance evaluations, are effective and demonstrated tools to account for and detect theft or diversion of SNM in facilities containing SNM in bulk material form (i.e., not in discrete, countable items). Historically in the United States, these types of facilities have included fuel fabrication, conversion, and enrichment facilities. In comparison, reactors have relied on item counting of assemblies and control of SNM while in containment (e.g., a sealed reactor pressure vessel) because, to date, reactor fuel has been in item form. In liquid-fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs), unlike traditional light water reactors (LWRs) or bulk facilities, bulk SNM quantities can change significantly during operation as a result of depletion and transmutation. This introduces challenges to the use of traditional periodic physical inventories and material balance evaluations to detect theft or diversion of SNM in reactors that use SNM in bulk material form. Liquid-fueled (i.e., salt-fueled) MSR facilities are MSRs that use SNM within a salt eutectic as the fuel. The SNM is in a bulk material form any time it is outside of fresh or spent fuel storage containers. Some examples of when SNM will be in bulk form in the facility are during addition of fuel to the reactor system, while fuel is circulating in operation, and while fuel is in a drain tank. Periodic physical inventories and material balance evaluations can likely be effectively applied to many portions of an MSR facility, including all areas where depletion and transmutation are not significantly changing the quantities of SNM within the control area. Within an MSR facility, this would include fresh fuel receipt and loading, waste streams that may contain SNM, irradiated fuel storage outside of the reactor core, and any irradiated fuel processing that may happen after SNM has been removed from the reactor. All of these process steps could rely on measurements of SNM quantities compared with documented inventories. Any discrepancies from predicted (i.e., book) inventories and measured inventories could be quantified as inventory differences, consistent with traditional MC&A guidance from the NRC (e.g., in NUREG-1065 Revision 2, NUREG-2159 Revision 1, and RG 5.29 Revision 2). Within the reactor system, additions and removals to the book inventory include depletion of the SNM (e.g., fission of 235 U), which complicates the use of physical inventories. SNM control, however, can also likely be effectively applied to detect theft of SNM throughout a liquid-fueled MSR facility. To complement these approaches, prior technical reports have identified that a diversion path analysis may be a useful, risk-informed, and performance-based tool to determine suitable elements of an MC&A approach for the reactor system within a liquid-fueled MSR facility.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Economic Model for Estimation of GDP Losses in the MACCS Offsite Consequence Analysis Code

The MACCS (MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System) code is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tool used to perform probabilistic health and economic consequence assessments for atmospheric releases of radionuclides. It is also used by international organizations, both reactor owners and regulators. It is intended and most commonly used for hypothetical accidents that could potentially occur in the future rather than to evaluate past accidents or to provide emergency response during an ongoing accident. It is designed to support probabilistic risk and consequence analyses and is used by the NRC, U.S. nuclear licensees, the Department of Energy, and international vendors, licensees, and regulators. This report describes the modeling framework, implementation, verification, and benchmarking of a GDP-based model for economic losses that has recently been developed as an alternative to the original cost-based economic loss model in MACCS. The GDP-based model has its roots in a code developed by Sandia National Laboratories for the Department of Homeland Security to estimate short-term losses from natural and manmade accidents, called the Regional Economic Accounting analysis tool (REAcct). This model was adapted and modified for MACCS and is now called the Regional Disruption Economic Impact Model (RDEIM). It is based on input-output theory, which is widely used in economic modeling. It accounts for direct losses to a disrupted region affected by an accident, indirect losses to the national economy due to disruption of the supply chain, and induced losses from reduced spending by displaced workers. RDEIM differs from REAcct in its treatment and estimation of indirect loss multipliers, elimination of double counting associated with inter-industry trade in the affected area, and that it is designed to be used to estimate impacts for extended periods that can occur from a major nuclear reactor accident, such as the one that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi site in Japan. Most input-output models do not account for economic adaptation and recovery, and in this regard RDEIM differs from its parent, REAcct, because it allows for a user-definable national recovery period. Implementation of a recovery period was one of several recommendations made by an independent peer review panel to ensure that RDEIM is state-of-practice. For this and several other reasons, RDEIM differs from REAcct. Both the original and the RDEIM economic loss models account for costs from evacuation and relocation, decontamination, depreciation, and condemnation. Where the original model accounts for an expected rate of return, based on the value of property, that is lost during interdiction, the RDEIM model instead accounts for losses of GDP based on the industrial sectors located within a county. The original model includes costs for disposal of crops and milk that the RDEIM model currently does not, but these costs tend to contribute insignificantly to the overall losses. This document discusses three verification exercises to demonstrate that the RDEIM model is implemented correctly in MACCS. It also describes a benchmark study at five nuclear power plants chosen to represent the spectrum of U.S. commercial sites. The benchmarks provide perspective on the expected differences between the RDEIM and the original cost-based economic loss models. The RDEIM model is shown to consistently predict larger losses than the original model, probably in part because it accounts for national losses by including indirect and induced losses; whereas, the original model only accounts for regional losses. Nonetheless, the RDEIM model predicts losses that are remarkably consistent with the original cost-based model, differing by 16% at most for the five sites combined with three source terms considered in this benchmark.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗