SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
NuScale systems engineering program overview, including technical data management and model-based engineering, product structures, architecture views, and model-based systems engineering. Includes a discussion on technical risk and opportunity management and technical readiness levels, as well as risk-informed performance-based principles and methods.
Seismic analysis of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), including the consideration of soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects, is an important and required step in the design and licensing of nuclear power plant SSCs important to safety. Historically, the SSI analysis of nuclear structures has been performed using equivalent linear methods. However, there has been considerable industry investment in alternative seismic design and analysis approaches to reduce the construction cost of new reactors. Toward that goal and in alignment with the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) framework, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has proposed a risk-informed, performance-based approach to seismic design that allows inelastic response in those nuclear plant structures not required for confinement. As a complementary effort, reactor designers are exploring nonlinear seismic analysis methods to optimize structural designs and reduce construction costs.
The Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) is a fast spectrum test reactor currently being developed in the United States under the direction of the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy. The VTR is utilizing a risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) approach for design support and authorization by the DOE, derived from recent efforts by the US industry led Licensing Modernization Project (LMP). This document contains an overview of the implementation of the LMP approach in support of the VTR Conceptual Safety Design Report (CSDR). The work reported here is the result of studies supporting a VTR conceptual design, cost, and schedule estimate for DOE-NE to make a decision on procurement. As such, it is preliminary. The VTR RIPB authorization approach utilizes information from the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), coupled with deterministic analyses, to aid in decision-making regarding the identification and categorization of safety basis events (SBEs), the classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and the evaluation of defense-in-depth (DID) adequacy. As part of initial reactor design efforts, a VTR conceptual design PRA was developed to support the RIPB process, which focused on at-power internal events, with scoping analyses for seismic and sodium fire hazards. In addition to supporting numerous design studies, preliminary results from the RIPB approach and the VTR conceptual design PRA were utilized as the basis of the VTR CSDR. The initial identification and categorization of SBEs, SSC classification, and DID evaluation were contained within the CSDR, which was submitted to DOE in 2019 as part of the CD-1 submittal package. Following review, DOE approved the CSDR in April 2020 and the CD-1 package in late 2020. Valuable experience was gained through the implementation of the RIPB approach for design and authorization during the VTR conceptual design phase, which is summarized in this document. To the extent possible, this experience has been shared with the advanced reactor industry, through publications and participation in licensing tabletops, in addition to informing DOE:NE advanced reactor regulatory development efforts. Furthermore, the approval of the CSDR by the DOE as part of CD-1 represents a significant milestone in the use of RIPB approaches for advanced reactor licensing.
The recent resurgence in advance (non-light water) reactor development has been paralleled by the development of risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) licensing pathways. Specifically, the creation of the RIPB Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) approach and subsequent endorsement by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) now provides advanced reactor vendors with a defined RIPB method to develop an affirmative safety case for licensing. In addition, the Technology Inclusive Content of Applications Project (TICAP) has published guidance on developing a license application based on the LMP approach. To support the utilization of risk information as part of advanced reactor design and licensing efforts, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American Nuclear Society (ANS) Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management (JCNRM) has developed a probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) standard for advanced reactors. The standard, which was formerly approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 2021 and recently endorsed by the NRC in trial use Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.247, is an integral standard, covering from initiating events to offsite consequence. A major feature of the standard is that it permits the inclusion of any source of radioactivity material at the site within the plant PRA. Therefore, non-core sources of radioactivity, such as fuel storage, fuel processing, and purification systems, can be included within a single comprehensive plant PRA. For those advanced reactor vendors utilizing a RIPB licensing approach, there is an opportunity to include the non-core sources of radioactivity within the RIPB framework for licensing decision-making, such as the categorization of events, classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), and evaluation of the adequacy of defense-in-depth (DID). For advanced reactor designs that contain multiple non-core sources of radioactivity, or for monolithic plant sites that include associated fuel facilities, this approach could potentially simplify licensing applications through the use of a single, uniform, and consistent decision-making framework across all radioactive sources at the site. In addition, a RIPB approach could provide additional insights regarding plant behavior, flexibility regarding licensing decision-making, and potentially allow the use of risk information as part of the plant oversight process. Risk-informing these aspects of advanced reactor licensing would also be consistent with the NRC’s risk policy statement. However, there is diverse regulation and guidance regarding the licensing of non-core sources of radioactivity and generally limited experience using RIPB approaches for the evaluation as part of licensing.
Currently, nuclear power plant physical security systems are highly dependent on air-gaps as a protective measure against cyber-threats. Cyber-physical threats become more likely as advanced cyber-threat capabilities to jump air-gaps transition into common use. Defending against the emerging threat of cyber-enabled physical intrusions is poorly understood. The consequence of these cyber-physical attacks has no quantitative analysis method to inform risk-informed, performance-based cybersecurity approaches. By modifying the physical security simulation tool Dante, cyber-physical threat consequence was able to be analyzed on a notional facility. The results of this analysis are used to design a Defensive Cybersecurity Architecture (DCSA) for the physical security system to produce example resilience measures for this notional facility. A DCSA defines security levels to provide a graded approach for defending plant functions, and security zones for trusted communication between systems. This approach can be applied to real world systems to produce physical protection systems and response measures that are resilient to cyber-physical threats.
Various advanced reactor developers are exploring the potential for reductions in the size of physical security forces and emergency planning zones. These reductions are based on robust fuel forms and inherently safe reactor designs. However, such reductions in physical protection measures could increase the risk of sabotage. To assess the possibility of reducing these measures, sabotage-induced radiological consequence analyses were carried out. These analyses considered accident scenarios that were beyond design basis accidents and overly conservative (Shah, 2025a; Shah, 2025b; Shah and Hartanto, 2026), yielding very large release fractions. These fractions, which can be used to evaluate physical protection and emergency planning requirements, have been crudely determined and applied as demonstrations for a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) (Shah and Hartanto, 2025a), a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) (Shah and Hartanto, 2025b), a heat pipe–cooled reactor (HPR) (Shah and Hartanto, 2025c), and a molten salt–cooled reactor (MSR) (Shah et al., 2026). A Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) team used MELCOR—a fully integrated severe accident analysis code—to demonstrate the code’s capability to analyze advanced (i.e., not light water–cooled) reactors (including a fluoride salt–cooled high-temperature reactor [FHR]) and calculate radiological releases to the environment during severe accidents (Wagner et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022c, 2023a, and 2023b). Although the analyses were carried out to demonstrate MELCOR’s growing capability, the release source terms were estimated for advanced reactors, providing valuable insights into the accident progression and radiological releases. These findings from prior SNL studies, including estimated source terms and related sensitivity studies, were leveraged to derive source terms for postulated sabotage-induced accidents. Insights from these sensitivity studies informed the scaling of SNL’s estimated source terms for the defined accident scenarios. The derived release fractions for the severe accident scenarios for the respective reactor designs can be used to perform more nuanced dose consequence analyses to evaluate the reactors’ physical protection and emergency planning zone requirements. These analyses are in accordance with the risk-informed, performance-based approach proposed under 10 CFR Part 53. This study builds on the prior source term analyses and associated sensitivity studies by SNL to derive time-dependent and design-informed release fractions. Section 2 describes the diverse advanced reactor designs analyzed by the SNL team. Section 3 discusses the severe accident analyses, the release fractions calculated, and the limitations and assumptions of the demonstration project. Section 4 presents the release percentages derived for the hypothetical sabotage-induced severe accidents at the advanced reactors. Section 5 summarizes the study’s findings and conclusions.
Comprehensive Land Use and Environmental Stewardship (CLUES) Report serves as a summary document of the land use and environmental stewardship activities occurring on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site (Desert) and the Research and Education Campus (REC) within Idaho Falls. Land and facility use planning and decisions at the INL Site are guided by a comprehensive planning process in accordance with the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Order 430.1C, “Real Property Asset Management,” which states "Establish a data-driven, risk-informed, performance-based approach to the life-cycle management of real property assets that aligns the real property portfolio with DOE mission needs; acquire, manage, positively account for, and dispose of real property assets in a safe, secure, cost-effective, and sustainable manner; and ensure the real property portfolio is appropriately sized, aligned, and in the proper condition to support efficient mission execution." Land use planning, like Campus Master Planning and 5-Year Facility Planning, provides a means for better, more sustainable use of the INL Site in a coordinated effort to ensure current and future mission needs are met, including acquisition, recapitalization, maintenance, disposition, real property utilization and long-term stewardship. This document and all functions of INL are guided by the DOE Vision for INL and the INL Mission and builds on the baseline established in the FY 2015 CLUES Report. However, it delivers a revised structure with focus on new resource management zones, which provide organization of key management considerations and access restrictions to optimize land use and environmental stewardship. A new set of thematic Guiding Principles presented in this report provide the intent and sustainable management direction to protect the INL Site natural environment. They demonstrate that the mission and vision of DOE and INL can be realized with inclusion of first of a kind technology, private sector development, and globally recognized testing and demonstration. This CLUES Report encourages comprehensive management decision-making with additional resource discussions for sustainability, the built environment, and the ecological landscape at the INL Site. Enhanced resource considerations and trends emphasize the importance of air, land use, environmental, subsurface, and cultural resources. The INL Site supports exceptional and interdependent resources. A diversity of bat species are accommodated by culturally significant caves distributed around the Site. Big game species like elk, deer, and moose seek vegetation communities which are protected by long-term stewardship and monitoring programs.
This hazard evaluation supports the Microreactor Applications Research, Validation, and Evaluation (MARVEL) Project’s design effort and the development of the preliminary documented safety analysis (PDSA) (addendum to safety analysis report [SAR]-420, “Transient Reactor Test [TREAT] Facility FSAR”) (SAR-420-ADD-1). The hazard evaluation process for the MARVEL project for compliance with the requirements in 10 CFR 830, “Nuclear Safety Management,” follows a process similar to the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) as outlined in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)-18-04, “Risk-Informed Performance-Based Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development,” and supporting documents. The LMP process is adapted to fit Department of Energy (DOE) reactor regulatory requirements as applicable and appropriate using a graded approach based on the MARVEL microreactor design. This approach provides reasonable assurance of meeting the requirements of 10 CFR 830 for protection of the public, workers, and environment.
This research evaluates a cost reduction investigation through adoption of a functional containment approach on the microreactor system and structure. Trade-offs between microreactor system designs, fuels and reactor module sizes are evaluated based on performance-based and risk-informed design procedures. Cost savings are evaluated against trade-offs in the reliability of passive heat removal systems, reactivity control, and radioactive material containment. Results can inform the Microreactor Program and reactor designs on “sweet spots” for microreactors that are cost-efficient while meeting required safety limits.
As part of the application process for license renewal and subsequent license renewal, nuclear utilities must perform an evaluation to confirm that they have appropriately considered aging effects on plant structures, systems, components within the scope of the license renewal. This effort within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability program’s Risk-informed System Analysis pathway is focused on risk-informed and performance-based approaches for aging management of buried piping, specifically managing selective leaching degradation phenomena. Selective leaching is a commonly occurring aging and degradation mechanism in buried pipes at nuclear power plants. To better understand the extent of selective leaching and its effect on the health of buried components, the licensees currently rely on visual inspections and destructive examinations which require extraction of multiple buried components. This research explores technological solutions that may replace or supplement existing inefficient, costly, and labor-intensive methods used in aging management.
This report describes the basis used to develop the radiological dose acceptance and design criteria contained in the draft updates to Army Regulation 50–7 (AR 50–7) Army Reactor Program and its accompanying draft Department of the Army (DA) Pamphlet (PAM), Army Reactor Program Procedures. These criteria will apply to Army nuclear reactors that fall under AR 50–7 and its accompanying DA PAM and ensure alignment with the overall objectives of the Army Reactor Program. The development basis for the radiological dose and design criteria supports a modern, technology-neutral, risk-informed, and performance-based approach to Army regulation of reactors and the demonstration of “adequate protection of the public.” To establish these criteria that support the Army’s unique operational requirements, multiple well-known and well-established standards and their supporting documentation were reviewed to ensure consistency with existing regulatory safety levels, including guidance from U.S. and international sources. These include the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) regulations and policy, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s (CNSC’s) regulatory documents, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA’s) safety standards, as well as industry input that is tailored specifically to advanced microreactors. This report walks through the key definitions and associated references used for these criteria, which are outlined in Section 2.0. Based on these definitions, the dose acceptance criteria were established for various receptors for routine reactor operations (Section 3.2), design basis accidents (Section 3.3), and beyond design basis accidents (Section 3.4). Comparisons of multiple national and international dose limits are provided in these sections. Lastly, Section 4.0 outlines the reactor safety design criteria contained in the draft DA PAM and their associated bases.
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.
Over the past 4 years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. To achieve this evolution, NASA is factoring in an objectives-driven and assurance case mindset to develop a risk-informed and performance-based program. NASA and others have successfully applied this mindset in other disciplines and contexts and it is being pursued here via broad cooperation within NASA and with external stakeholders. This paper will briefly describe how the NASA nuclear flight safety program is evolving to meet these changing needs.
In recent years, the United States (U.S.) Government has issued several new National policies that fundamentally change the approach to nuclear flight safety for aerospace applications, including the complete revision of the Federal policy for handling launch of spacecraft containing space nuclear systems. In response, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is updating its nuclear flight safety program while still maintaining consistency with other Federal policies, international conventions, and NASA’s own policies. To achieve this evolution, NASA is factoring in an objectives-driven and assurance case mindset to develop a risk-informed and performance-based program. NASA and others have successfully applied this mindset in other disciplines and contexts and it is being pursued here via broad cooperation within NASA and with external stakeholders. This paper will briefly describe how the NASA nuclear flight safety program is evolving to meet these changing needs.
Modularity options have been limited for traditional nuclear energy deployment due to the conventional light water reactor (LWR) safety requirements, such as high pressure retaining heavy and robust containment structures. However, a relatively new regulatory approach called ‘Functional Containment’ has potential to allow less expensive and more flexible designs for non-LWRs. Functional containment provides flexibility in design and deployment based on risk-informed and performance-based criteria, so that reactors are not over-designed. Non-nuclear industry has successfully used modular design approaches in automotive, aerospace, chemical processing, building construction, and ship building. These industries have shown that modular construction reduces construction time by around 30% - 50% compared to the conventional stick-built approach. The nuclear industry can use similar approaches to reduce construction time and costs, balanced with safety requirements, using the functional containment approach. This paper discussing the background of modularity in nuclear energy, examples of less learned, modularity approaches in non-nuclear industries and the potential of cost and schedule savings through the emerging regulatory design flexibilities potentially enabling combination of modular deployment at different scales.
While probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of nuclear facilities is expected to include internal and external hazards for a risk-informed and performance-based design, the current state of practice treats each hazard independently. However, such an independent treatment of hazards may not account for the correlations between different hazards and their response of and damage to the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) in a plant resulting in underestimating the overall risk. This project proposes to advance the multi-hazard PRA of nuclear facilities to more adequately evaluate concurrent hazards and contribute to an increased safety of nuclear plants. A framework for multi-hazard PRA will be developed by identifying concurrent hazard events (both internal and external) and event sequences that include interdependencies through the response of SSCs. An example application of the multi-hazard PRA framework will be demonstrated by considering a generic pressurized water reactor (PWR) subjected to seismic and internal flooding hazards. Computational models for the response of components will be developed to generated multi-hazard fragility surfaces under seismic and flooding loads. A PRA model consisting of event and fault trees will also be developed to quantify the multi-hazard risk profile and compare it with the independent hazard risk profile. Overall, by advancing the multi-hazard PRA of nuclear facilities, this project enhances nuclear safety and reduces costs by mitigating unforeseen consequences caused by correlations between concurrent hazards.
Planetary protection (PP) policy seeks to avoid harmful contamination by limiting biological and relevant organic contamination from spacecraft as well as preventing adverse changes to Earth’s biosphere when extraterrestial samples are brought back to Earth. The PP policy at NASA was updated in 2021 (NPR 8715.24) and 2022 (NASA-STD-8719.27) to enable missions by expanding the decades old prescriptive requirements to allow for an option of adopting performance-based requirements that are objectivesdriven, risk-informed and case-assured. In parallel, the final PP knowledge gap workshop was completed representing the international consensus on the key areas to be considered in developing crew PP policy. These knowledge gaps focused on key technology development areas in 1) microbial and human health monitoring, 2) technical and operations needed for contamination control and 3) natural transport of contamination on Mars. As robotic missions start to implement performance-based approaches and research and technology efforts commence to inform crew policy the demand for data quality driven verification and validation in relevant space environments. Examples of the types of testing that is envisioned includes test as you fly validation and verification of decontamination systems in a relevant on-orbit and Mars environment, developing lethality curves of terrestrial organisms to further our understanding of the biocidal impacts of Mars and the space environment, and particle transport model validation and verification. Thus, the PP discipline has identified the need for groundbased space environments to perform preliminary testing as validation and verification of flight systems and to advance the technology readiness level prior to further testing on-orbit or lunar environments to prepare for Mars.
Planetary protection (PP) policy seeks to avoid harmful contamination by limiting biological and relevant organic contamination from spacecraft as well as preventing adverse changes to Earth’s biosphere when extraterrestrial samples are brought back to Earth. The PP policy at NASA was updated in 2021 (NPR 8715.24) and 2022 (NASA-STD-8719.27) to enable missions by expanding the decades old prescriptive requirements to allow for an option of adopting performance-based requirements that are objectives-driven, risk-informed and case-assured. In parallel, the final PP knowledge gap workshop was completed representing the international consensus on the key areas to be considered in developing crew PP policy. These knowledge gaps focused on key technology development areas in 1) microbial and human health monitoring, 2) technical and operations needed for contamination control and 3) natural transport of contamination on Mars. As robotic missions start to implement performance-based approaches and research and technology efforts commence to inform crew policy the demand for data quality driven verification and validation in relevant space environments. Examples of the types of testing that is envisioned includes test as you fly validation and verification of decontamination systems in a relevant on-orbit and Mars environment, developing lethality curves of terrestrial organisms to further our understanding of the biocidal impacts of Mars and the space environment, and particle transport model validation and verification. Thus, the PP discipline has identified the need for ground-based space environments to perform preliminary testing as validation and verification of flight systems and to advance the technology readiness level prior to further testing on-orbit or lunar environments to prepare for Mars.