Results for “licensing and permitting” — Page 2

DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of AI-enabled Digital Documented Safety Analysis

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) is leading a transformative initiative to accelerate advanced reactor deployment by fundamentally reimagining how nuclear safety basis documentation is developed, reviewed, and maintained. Traditional Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) processes for DOE-authorized facilities rely on static, document-centric workflows that consume significant time and resources, exemplified by recent major licensing efforts requiring hundreds of thousands of staff hours and millions of pages of documentation review. These conventional approaches create barriers to the rapid, cost-effective deployment of advanced reactors that America's future energy needs demand. NRIC's DOE Authorization Digital Transformation Project addresses these challenges through an innovative framework that integrates artificial intelligence (AI), digital engineering, and systems-based data management into a cohesive digital ecosystem. This white paper presents NRIC's methodology for evaluating AI-enabled document generation capabilities within this broader digital infrastructure, using the Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) facility as a pilot case study. The evaluation will assess an AI tool's ability to generate a Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (PDSA) through progressive integration stages—from standalone document processing to full digital thread connectivity—while maintaining rigorous verification, validation, and regulatory acceptance standards. By establishing dynamic, traceable connections between design data and safety documentation, NRIC's approach has the potential to reduce both document development time and regulatory review cycles by as much as 50%, while simultaneously improving accuracy, consistency, and traceability. This initiative represents a critical step toward establishing reusable digital infrastructure that reactor developers can leverage to accelerate their path from concept to commercial operation, directly supporting NRIC's mission to demonstrate and deploy advanced nuclear energy technologies.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Challenges in the post-licensing stage of U.S. hydropower development: Current status and some potential solutions

The issuance of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license is an important milestone in the development process of new U.S. hydropower projects. The complexity and uncertain timeline of the licensing process have been often cited as a key deterrent to new hydropower installations in the United States. However, very little attention has been paid to post-licensing timelines and attrition rates. This article explores the challenges faced by developers in bringing their FERC-licensed hydropower projects to the construction stage. Post-licensing activities to be completed before starting construction include obtaining additional permitting from other federal or state agencies, completing the technical design, securing financing, and in most cases, negotiating a power purchase agreement. For the set of projects that obtained a FERC license between 2007 and 2018, we assembled a dataset—combining information from FERC dockets and responses from a questionnaire to developers—to calculate attrition rates and development timelines and to examine the reasons for delays and cancellations.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

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 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.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,SOLAR ENERGY↗

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.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

Community Engagement - A Citizen-Centric Approach to Seeking a Social License - 20017

The long regulatory road has finally been completed-after years of effort a Record of Decision has been signed and a Permit to Construct has been granted or a Permit to Operate has been obtained. But what about the other road that should be taken in parallel-community engagement? Working with the public is not a sequential activity, rather it is a consequential one and needs to be integrated with overall project planning. Unless you have effectively, meaningfully, and patiently engaged with the project's communities of impact, you may find your project trying to obtain a social license or a social license to operate (SLO). The SLO has its origins in the mining industry and its roots in the business model of corporate social responsibility and sustainability. These latter practices are well known to the US DOE and its contractor community. Aspects of the SLO are emerging as individuals and communities are becoming more informed and have increased expectations for being able to influence and shape decisions. When local community issues are not sought out, listened to, or addressed early, and questions are left unanswered, they can become agenda items for larger unaffiliated groups, and project loss (through delays and/or cancellation) can occur. Issues can transition from resolvable to intractable, a type of SLO face-off. Social media campaigns, serial negative media coverage, and protest signs at project sites opposing regulatory decisions already made are no longer anomalies. These types of incidents demonstrate the increasingly delicate relationship between approved regulatory/technical decisions and public acceptance of those decisions. A SLO is not a requirement. However, the building-blocks of a SLO - working with members of affected communities to build understanding, potentially to obtain and maintain community acceptance or even gain approval or support - are evidence of leadership by project sponsors. Actions taken, or not taken, by project sponsors truly have the ability to influence an outcome. While projects are not assured of success or failure, engaging the community in an empowered process is an investment of time and resources toward success for the project and thus for the communities of impact. Authors Note: Extensive literature searches were performed in developing this paper. The majority of the published literature on SLO as a 'movement' was found from sources in Canada, the European Union (Germany and France in particular), South Asia, South Korea, and many Latin American countries. The literature addressed resource development (mining), infrastructure, and energy projects. Articles written by US sources often spoke to origins and structural theory, specific project issues such as Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) and to protests/demonstrations related to those projects, rather than systemic opposition/conflict phenomena. For these reasons many international SLO experiences and sources are cited in the discussion. The authors recognize these non-US experiences with SLO as having a 'forecast' value to US projects, especially those related to nuclear projects of any type, waste treatment and disposal, energy development (especially fossil fuels as well as alternative sources), mining, and infrastructure. The body of future SLO experiences in the US will shape the future responses to it. (authors)

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Identification and Validation of Models of Importance for Simulation of Time-at-Temperature using CTF

The US nuclear industry is currently investigating the feasibility and benefit of pursuing a clad performance–based licensing strategy known as time-at-temperature (TaT)—whereby limited dryout of the fuel is permitted during anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs)—as opposed to the more restrictive critical heat flux (CHF) limitation.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Identification and Validation of Models of Importance for Simulation of Time-at-Temperature using CTF

The US nuclear industry is currently investigating the feasibility and benefit of pursuing a clad performance–based licensing strategy known as time-at-temperature (TaT)—whereby limited dryout of the fuel is permitted during anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs)—as opposed to the more restrictive critical heat flux (CHF) limitation.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Regulatory Treatment of Low Frequency External Events under a Risk-Informed Performance-Based Licensing Pathway: Safety Criteria Evaluation

There has been recent progress in the development of risk-informed performance-based (RIPB) design and licensing approaches, which leverage the insights gained from detailed risk assessments and utilize performance-based metrics to permit flexibility and innovation. The RIPB approaches have included the probabilistic treatment of external hazards, including low frequency events that are beyond the design basis. A preceding study conducted in FY21 noted that there are certain challenges to the probabilistic treatment of low frequency external events, which are primarily the result of uncertainty in the hazard curve and the associated plant response to rare, severe events. The current work expands on the previous study by examining the regulatory safety criteria contained within draft 10 CFR Part 53 and associated draft RIPB seismic design guidance. The evaluation identified potential challenges in demonstrating satisfaction of the safety criteria for low frequency external events, with specific difficulties associated with demonstrating compliance with cumulative safety criteria metrics, such as the quantitative health objectives (QHOs). Non-LWRs are expected to utilize the direct calculation of offsite consequence, rather than use surrogates, for comparison to the QHOs, which can be particularly challenging as the previously identified uncertainties are compounded by uncertainties in the response of the neighboring population. The current work details this evaluation and key findings. The central recommendation from this effort is that it is necessary to develop an approach for demonstrating compliance with the safety criteria in draft Part 53 that addresses the key challenges while providing flexibility to applicants.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

GH Induction System 1B (BR-105) & MRF System 6 (BR-120) in B226

The purpose of the attached calculations and detail sketches is to document conformance with the requirements of DOE-STD-1020-2016 for the subject project. The calculations have been reviewed for technical accuracy, appropriate methodology, and completeness using the "Document Review Method." The reviewer confirms that the stated purpose has been met. This package does not constitute a construction permit. The enclosed calculations are valid for 2 years from signed date or expiration of listed code cycles, whichever occurs first. Licensed civil or structural engineer is to be contacted for calculations application following expiration of calculations package.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Comparison of atmospheric radionuclide dispersion models for a risk-informed consequence-driven advanced reactor licensing framework

Current nuclear facility emergency planning zones (EPZs) are based on outdated distance-based criteria, predating comprehensive dose and risk-informed frameworks. Recent advancements in simulation tools have permitted the development of site-specific, dose, and risk-based consequence-driven assessment frameworks. This study investigated the computation of advanced reactor (AR) EPZs using two atmospheric dispersion models: a straight-line Gaussian plume model (GPM) and a semi-Lagrangian Particle in Cell (PIC). Two case studies were conducted: (1) benchmarking the NRC SOARCA study for the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station and (2) analyzing an advanced INL Heat Pipe Design A microreactor's end-of-cycle inventory. The dose criteria for both cases were 10 mSv at mean weather conditions and 50 mSv at 95th percentile weather conditions at 96 h post-release. Results demonstrated that GPM and PIC estimated similar mean peak dose levels for large boiling water reactors in the farfield case, placing EPZ limits beyond current regulations. For ARs with source terms remaining in the nearfield, PIC modeling without specific nearfield considerations could result in excessively high doses and inaccurate EPZ designations. PIC dispersion demonstrated an order of magnitude higher estimate of nearfield inhalation dose contribution when compared to GPM results. Furthermore, both models significantly reduced EPZ sizing within the nearfield. Thus, reductions in the AR source term may eliminate the need for a separate EPZ.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗

DOE OSTI2022

MECHANISTIC MULTIPHYSICS MODELING OF CLADDING RUPTURE IN NUCLEAR FUEL RODS DURING LOSS-OF-COOLANT ACCIDENT CONDITIONS

The Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) is a design basis accident that is included as part of the safety analysis of nuclear power plants. As the nuclear industry desires to increase the cycle length and discharge burnup of existing nuclear power plants they must demonstrate safe operation during a LOCA on high burnup fuel. During a LOCA transient on high burnup fuel rods, the rods may undergo a process known as fuel fragmentation, relocation, and dispersal (FFRD). To permit dispersal, the cladding encapsulating the fuel must rupture with an opening size large enough to allow the fragmented fuel particles to release. Current licensing tools used by industry and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission are limited in geometric fidelity and materials that can be analyzed. These simulation tools generally employ a quasi-two-dimensional (1.5D or Layered1D) or 2D-RZ axisymmetric geometric representations exclusively. While a valid approach under some instances, there are times when important physics have an asymmetric behavior in the fuel rod. Examples include fuel fragmentation, thermal-hydraulic boundary conditions, and cladding rupture, all of which are important for LOCA analysis. As industry pursues burnup extensions it must be demonstrated that fuel dispersal can be mitigated or eliminated. To do this, an understanding of the rupture opening after cladding failure is required. This work presents the development of a model for predicting the size and location of the rupture opening in failed fuel rods during LOCA conditions using advanced modeling and simulation tools. In order to supply the rupture model with appropriate boundary conditions, improvements to fuel fragmentation, axial relocation and oxidation modeling were required. First, the eXtended Finite Element Method (XFEM) is used to mechanistically predict the number of fuel fragments that form due to material strength randomization, criteria for strength randomization, mesh density, power ramping rates and irradiation effects. These predictions with associated uncertainty were compared to empirical correlations developed for UO2 verifying that they can be used with increased confidence in subsequent axial relocation analyses. Secondly, a new first-of-its-kind Layered2D computational framework was developed that provides the ability to apply azimuthally varying boundary conditions while providing discrete layers to track fuel movement during the LOCA. An existing fuel axial relocation model developed for Layered1D was extended to work within the Layered2D framework. A large sensitivity study was performed on the initial version of the model to identify modeling parameters of particular importance, with the emissivity used for radiation after blowdown being the primary source of uncertainty. Then, a simplistic approach to incorporate mechanical degradation of the cladding due to oxidation was also developed to investigate the impact of reduced cladding thickness on predictions of the time to failure of cladding tubes. It was found that the cladding will typically rupture prior to a reduction in thickness that is sufficient to impact the rupture behavior. A model was then developed for predicting cladding rupture that transfers the cladding surface temperatures, rod internal and external pressures, fast neutron fluence, and fast neutron flux from a more detailed Layered1D, Layered2D, or 2D-RZ analysis to a 3D cladding only analysis. Comparisons of the rupture model to a few experiments indicate reasonable predictions. The rupture model was then applied to two accident tolerant fuel concepts (FeCrAl and Cr-coated Zircaloy) where it predicted that both ATF concepts would have smaller rupture openings and delayed rupture times than the standard Zircaloy-4 cladding material under identical loading conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Recommendations to Improve Nuclear Licensing: Update to INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process

In 2023, various stakeholders had asked for BEA’s thoughts and recommendations to improve the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing review and approval process. This included an April 14, 2023 request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on “information and recommendations to improve the licensing review and approval process, . . . as well as the siting, licensing, construction, and oversight of advanced nuclear reactor technologies.” In response to these requests, BEA prepared and published INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process (2023 Report). The 2023 Report included 13 recommendations related to streamlining NRC hearings, expediting NRC safety and environmental reviews, otherwise improving NRC licensing, and providing financial benefits to new reactor projects. Many of these earlier recommendations were addressed through various legislative actions or changes made by the NRC. Section 2 of this report addresses the current status of those earlier recommendations. BEA recently received a new request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce seeking any suggestions for additional areas to examine or potential reforms “that may assist in modernizing the licensing and regulatory process that affects civil nuclear deployment.” Additionally, the new Secretary of Energy has identified initial DOE actions to support unleashing the golden era of American energy dominance, including “Unleash Commercial Nuclear Power in the United States” and “Streamline Permitting and Identify Undue Burdens on American Energy.” Given these developments, BEA has prepared a new set of updated recommendations in this report. The recommendations include updated versions of recommendations from the 2023 Report which have not been fully adopted, as well as entirely new recommendations. This set of recommendations has a slightly broader focus with some recommendations focused on DOE authorizations and some recommendations related to nuclear licensing beyond new reactors. Each recommendation below also identifies whether the recommendation would require legislative action or could be addressed directly by the respective agency.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Summary Overview of Content Guidance For Early Site Permit Applications

The Early Site Permit (ESP) process offered under Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 52, Subpart A, was promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 1989 to address industry concerns with the former licensing process under 10 CFR Part 50. Previously, the licensing process required large expenditures of time and money by applicants well before key site specific environmental, safety, and emergency planning issues could be resolved. As envisioned, the ESP process is meant to resolve these issues well in advance of when a decision is made to build a nuclear power facility and before substantial capital is invested in the construction of a new nuclear facility. The ESP application is required to provide design information pertaining to structures, systems, and components along with site-specific parameters (such as meteorology, demographics, and hydrology) and address site safety, environmental protection, and emergency planning. Although an ESP applicant does not need to specify a particular nuclear plant design, as in construction permit applications, it does need to provide sufficient surrogate design information (developed to bound the nuclear plant design(s) that are being considered by the applicant) so that the NRC can make a determination on the acceptability of the site and the environmental impacts, and determine whether designs bounded by the surrogate design information provided by the applicant can be qualified for the proposed site.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Regulatory Treatment of Non-Core Sources of Radioactivity for Advanced Reactor Designs

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.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2021

TCR Input to NUREG-1537 Process for Advanced Nuclear Technologies Derived from Additive Manufacturing

There has been a renewed interest by several advanced reactor developers to use NUREG-1537 “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors” as a basis for their safety analysis report content and organization. Recently, SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC (SHINE), which is a non-power, Aqueous Homogenous Reactor design radioisotope production facility, received a construction permit based around their NUREG-1537 safety evaluation report (ADAMS No. ML16229A140). Advanced reactor developers are interested in using NUREG-1537 as a basis for their safety analysis report content and organization because of its successful application towards research reactors, graded approach, and simplicity in structure and requirements. However, NUREG-1537 is still largely geared toward light water reactors (LWRs) and many improvements could be made or supported through guidance documents for advanced reactors. For nuclear power to play a role in the future zero-carbon energy portfolio, a supportive regulatory structure is needed to lower regulatory uncertainty and barriers to deployment. At the time of this report, no such document or pathway exists for advanced nuclear technologies, including those derived from nontraditional technology such as advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) and, specifically, additive manufacturing. This report will explore and provide recommendations as to how advanced nuclear technologies derived from additive manufacturing technologies could employ the use of an ISG, other guidance document, or revisions to NUREG-1537 to lower the regulatory uncertainty and barriers for adoption.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

AquaPV: Foundational Analysis and Industry Guidance on Floating PV Results

This dataset contains results of the technical potential analysis of floating photovoltaics (FPV) on federally owned or permitted reservoirs in the United States. Estimates of the area of reservoirs that is technically feasible for FPV development are provided for reservoirs that are owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers or the US Bureau of Reclamation, or are associated with hydropower dams licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Other associated data are included, such as estimates of the potential evaporative losses of FPV development, and whether the waterbody is associated with an energy community or disadvantaged community that could qualify it for investment or production tax credits. Data is provided both as a spreadsheet and in a geospatial format including the waterbody geometries. Please read the included readme for more detailed field definitions.

area↗

DOE OSTI2022

MOOSE framework enhancements for meshing reactor geometries

MOOSE is an open-source, parallel finite element framework designed to permit rapid development of robust multi-physics modeling capabilities. Under the DOE-NEAMS program, numerous solvers have been developed utilizing the open-source MOOSE framework for multiphysics reactor analysis. These solvers require input finite element meshes representing the discretized geometry. Typically, reactor analysts turn to licensed external tools for creation of reactor geometry meshes. Recently, enhancements have been added to the MOOSE framework to mesh common reactor geometries and improve MOOSE-based application user workflows. Support for hexagonal pins, assemblies, and cores has been added, and Cartesian support has been extended. Options for modeling static and rotating control drums within a hexagonal assembly are now available. Pin, assembly, and plane regions can be identified through automatically applied tags on the mesh called 'reporting IDs' for easier post- processing of physics results. An external open-source triangle routine has been leveraged within MOOSE to mesh core periphery zones. A set of reactor geometry builder routines further streamline the construction of hexagonal and Cartesian cores and include the ability to assign materials to regions during mesh generation. The new meshing routines are available through the MOOSE framework in the open-source 'Reactor' module, and the resulting directly within MOOSE-based applications or exported as Exodus II files for use in other finite element solvers. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗