SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PROPOSALS”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2015

Combined Modular Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Plus Solar PV Proposal for Rio Rancho High School, New Mexico

This is a proposal to locate a combined Modular Pumped Hydro (MPH) Energy Storage plus PV solar facility at Rio Rancho High School, NM. The facility will functionally provide electricity at night derived from renewable solar energy. Additionally the facility will provide STEM related educational opportunities for students and staff of the school, public community outreach, and validation of an energy storage approach applicable for the Nation (up to 1,000,000 kWh per installation). The proposal will summarize the nature of electricity, why energy storage is useful, present the combined MPH and solar PV production design, present how the actual design will be built and operated in a sustainable manner, how the project could be funded, and how the project could be used in STEM related activities.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2015

Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should be considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment by once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Assessment of the National Research Universal Reactor Proposed New Stack Sampling Probe Location for Compliance with ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999

This document reports on a series of tests conducted to assess the proposed air sampling location for the National Research Universal reactor (NRU) complex exhaust stack, located in Chalk River, Ontario, Canada, with respect to the applicable criteria regarding the placement of an air sampling probe. Due to the age of the equipment in the existing monitoring system, and the increasing difficulty in acquiring replacement parts to maintain this equipment, a more up-to-date system is planned to replace the current effluent monitoring system, and a new monitoring location has been proposed. The new sampling probe should be located within the exhaust stack according to the criteria established by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999, Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stack and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities. These criteria address the capability of the sampling probe to extract a sample that represents the effluent stream. The internal Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) project for this task was 65167, Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. Chalk River Effluent Duct Flow Qualification. The testing described in this document was guided by the Test Plan: Testing of the NRU Stack Air Sampling Position (TP-STMON-032).

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2016

Summary Report of Laboratory Testing to Establish the Effectiveness of Proposed Treatment Methods for Unremediated and Remediated Nitrate Salt Waste Streams

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2016

Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should be considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2016

Benchmarking Data for the Proposed Signature of Used Fuel Casks

A set of benchmarking measurements to test facets of the proposed extended storage signature was conducted on May 17, 2016. The measurements were designed to test the overall concept of how the proposed signature can be used to identify a used fuel cask based only on the distribution of neutron sources within the cask. To simulate the distribution, 4 Cf-252 sources were chosen and arranged on a 3x3 grid in 3 different patterns and raw neutron totals counts were taken at 6 locations around the grid. This is a very simplified test of the typical geometry studied previously in simulation with simulated used nuclear fuel.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Evaluating Proposed Investments in Power System Reliability and Resilience: Preliminary Results from Interviews with Public Utility Commission Staff

Policymakers and regulatory agencies are expressing renewed interest in the reliability and resilience of the U.S. electric power system in large part due to growing recognition of the challenges posed by climate change, extreme weather events, and other emerging threats. Unfortunately, there has been little or no consolidated information in the public domain describing how public utility/service commission (PUC) staff evaluate the economics of proposed investments in the resilience of the power system. Having more consolidated information would give policymakers a better understanding of how different state regulatory entities across the U.S. make economic decisions pertaining to reliability/resiliency. To help address this, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) was tasked by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis (EPSA) to conduct an initial set of interviews with PUC staff to learn more about how proposed utility investments in reliability/resilience are being evaluated from an economics perspective. LBNL conducted structured interviews in late May-early June 2016 with staff from the following PUCs: Washington D.C. (DCPSC), Florida (FPSC), and California (CPUC).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2017

Proposed Advanced Reactor Adaptation of the Standard Review Plan NUREG-0800 Chapter 4 (Reactor) for Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors and Modular High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors

This report proposes adaptation of the previous regulatory gap analysis in Chapter 4 (Reactor) of NUREG 0800, Standard Review Plan (SRP) for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR [Light Water Reactor] Edition. The proposed adaptation would result in a Chapter 4 review plan applicable to certain advanced reactors. This report addresses two technologies: the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) and the modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (mHTGR). SRP Chapter 4, which addresses reactor components, was selected for adaptation because of the possible significant differences in advanced non-light water reactor (non-LWR) technologies compared with the current LWR-based description in Chapter 4. SFR and mHTGR technologies were chosen for this gap analysis because of their diverse designs and the availability of significant historical design detail.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Summary Report of Comprehensive Laboratory Testing to Establish the Effectiveness of Proposed Treatment Methods for Unremediated and Remediated Nitrate Salt Waste Streams

The inadvertent creation of transuranic waste carrying hazardous waste codes D001 and D002 requires the treatment of the material to eliminate the hazardous characteristics and allow its eventual shipment and disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This report documents the effectiveness of two treatment methods proposed to stabilize both the unremediated and remediated nitrate salt waste streams (UNS and RNS, respectively) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The two technologies include the addition of zeolite (with and without the addition of water as a processing aid) and cementation. Surrogates were developed to evaluate both the solid and liquid fractions expected from parent waste containers, and both the solid and liquid fractions were tested. Both technologies are shown to be effective at eliminating the characteristic of ignitability (D001), and the addition of zeolite was determined to be effective at eliminating corrosivity (D002), with the preferred option1 of adding zeolite currently planned for implementation at LANL’s Waste Characterization, Reduction, and Repackaging Facility (WCRRF). The course of this work verified the need to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed remedy for debris material, if required. The evaluation determined that WypAlls, cheesecloth, and Celotex absorbed with saturated nitrate salt solutions exhibit the ignitability characteristic (all other expected debris is not classified as ignitable). Finally, liquid surrogates containing saturated nitrate salts did not exhibit the characteristic of ignitability in their pure form (those neutralized with Kolorsafe and mixed with sWheat did exhibit D001). Sensitivity testing and an analysis were conducted to evaluate the waste form for reactivity. Tests included subjecting surrogate material to mechanical impact, friction, electrostatic discharge and thermal insults. The testing confirmed that the waste does not exhibit the characteristic of reactivity (D003). Follow-on testing was conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of zeolite stabilization for ignitable WypAll and cheesecloth debris and additional nitrate salt solutions (those exhibiting the oxidizer characteristic) to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remedy. Follow-on testing also included testing of surrogate materials containing Waste Lock 770, which is present in four of the RNS containers, and potential items of debris such as plywood and Celotex material. Testing to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy was performed using the specific remediation processes that are planned for use at the WCRRF. Finally, testing was also performed to evaluate the holding capacity of zeolite using a highly acidic surrogate solution and to characterize the composition of gases generated during mixing of zeolite with surrogate solutions. All these tests demonstrated the effectiveness of adding zeolite as the planned remedy.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

Energy Savings Analysis of the Proposed Revision of the Washington D.C. Non-Residential Energy Code

This report presents the results of an assessment of savings for the proposed Washington D.C. energy code relative to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. It includes annual and life cycle savings for site energy, source energy, energy cost, and carbon dioxide emissions that would result from adoption and enforcement of the proposed code for newly constructed buildings in Washington D.C. over a five year period.

Commercial Energy Code↗

DOE OSTI2018

Generic Community System Specification: A Proposed Format for Reporting the Results of Microgrid Optimization Analysis

This document provides a proposed format for reporting the results of microgrid optimization analysis. While the proposed format assumes that the modeling is conducted as part of a renewable energy retrofit of an existing diesel micro-grid, the format can certainly be adopted for other situations.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2018

Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Nonpower Reactor Licence Applications (NUREG-1537)

Development of non-power molten salt reactor (MSR) test facilities is under consideration to support the analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. These non-power MSR test facilities will require review by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. This report proposes chapter adaptations for NUREG-1537 in the form of interim staff guidance to address preparation and review of molten salt non-power reactor license applications. The proposed adaptations are based on a previous regulatory gap analysis of select chapters from NUREG-1537 for their applicability to non-power MSRs operating with a homogeneous fuel salt mixture.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2019

Final Energy Savings Analysis of the Proposed NYStretch-Energy Code 2018

In 2017, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) developed its 2016 Stretch Code Supplement to the 2016 New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code. Since2017, NYSERDA has continued to develop the 2018 edition, as part of the efforts to achieve a statewide Net Zero Energy Code by 2028. To support this effort, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)conducted energy simulation analysis to quantify the energy savings of proposed commercial provisions of the NYStretch-Energy Code 2018 compared to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES1 Standard 90.1-2013. Specifically, PNNL collaborated with New Buildings Institute (NBI), and developed energy-efficiency measures (EEMs) from national model codes and standards, high-performance building codes and standards, regional energy codes, and measures being proposed as part of the ongoing NYStretch-Energy code development process. PNNL analyzed these measures using whole building energy simulation for selected prototype commercial and multifamily buildings representing buildings in New York State.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2019

Final Energy Savings Analysis of the Proposed NYStretch-Energy Code 2018

In 2017, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) developed its 2016 Stretch Code Supplement to the 2016 New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code. Since 2017, NYSERDA has continued to develop the 2018 edition, as part of the efforts to achieve a statewide Net Zero Energy Code by 2028. To support this effort, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted energy simulation analysis to quantify the energy savings of proposed commercial provisions of the NYStretch-Energy Code 2018 compared to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES1 Standard 90.1-2013. Specifically, PNNL collaborated with New Buildings Institute (NBI), and developed energy-efficiency measures (EEMs) from national model codes and standards, high-performance building codes and standards, regional energy codes, and measures being proposed as part of the ongoing NYStretch-Energy code development process. PNNL analyzed these measures using whole building energy simulation for selected prototype commercial and multifamily buildings representing buildings in New York State. This report describes the analysis methodology, explains detailed specifications of the EEMs, and summarizes the results of individual EEMs and EEM bundles by building type and climate zone. As shown in Figure ES.1, significant energy saving could be achieved by adopting the NYStretch-Energy Code 2018.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2016

Proposed 10 MWe North-Facing Falling Particle Receiver Design

A 10 MWe north-facing falling particle receiver (FPR) is proposed in this document to support performance comparisons of this design when compared with a direct s-CO 2 solar receiver concept. This document describes the modeling and simulation effort for the proposed FPR to evaluate its thermal performance. A description of the modeling strategy is provided in the following section including details on the receiver and heliostat field. Then, this model is used to evaluate the performance of the receiver at various times of throughout the year. Finally, the results of this analysis are summarized. Direct comparisons with a similarly sized s-CO 2 solar receiver concept are not discussed here.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2018

A Proposed Path Forward for Transportation of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium

Many of the advanced reactors that are being designed will use high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) as the reactor fuel. HALEU is fuel that is enriched between 5% – 20% uranium-235. With the change to higher enriched material, the industry will have new challenges with the development and regulatory approval of enrichment and fuel fabrication facilities and suitable transportation packages to support the economic use of HALEU materials. One area of concern relates to ensure sub-criticality of the material during transportation as identified by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). To evaluate the relevant work, experts, and industry perspectives on HALEU, a workshop was organized to share relevant experience and insights into HALEU transportation, handling, and management. At the August 30 and 31, 2018 workshop, NEI and industry provided the following recommendations to DOE and the national lab complex. 1. DOE and the lab complex should communicate and educate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on criticality issues related to HALEU. 2. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) should support work needed to certify package design for the transportation of HALEU. a. Suggest amending the Certificate of Compliance of an existing package used for the shipment of commercial quantities. b. Suggest DOE provide funding to package designer(s) for analysis and engineering work for a package to be submitted to NRC for approval. 3. INL should provide specific, or a range, of the expected impurities that will be present in recycled naval fuel. 4. In the longer term, DOE and the lab complex should increase the availability of criticality benchmark data to further reduce conservatism in package design. In addition, a couple key takeaways were identified, including: 1. Although the labs can provide additional criticality experiments, industry has enough data to license facilities, overpacks, and cylinders. Validation from additional critical experiments to establish less uncertainty in the benchmarks will be helpful. 2. A collective effort from industry is needed to express consistency on how much information exists or is needed related to criticality. Based on interactions with industry, DOE, and national laboratories, it appears that large-volume transportation of fresh HALEU appears feasible from a criticality perspective. Specifically, an initial review of applicable criticality benchmark experiments identified numerous applicable experiments. However, a more thorough review of a realistic transportation package design is suggested. Therefore, the following next steps are proposed: 1. Evaluate a large volume package with uranium dioxide enriched to 20%. Specifically, the GNF-A NPC package was proposed as a potentially viable option. 2. Based on the results of (1), determine if additional package designs and fuel material should be evaluated. 3. Based on the results of (1), determine if additional criticality experiments would be beneficial to improve the margins for criticality due to uncertainties. 4. Determine DOE transportation needs (packages sizes, shielding requirements, handling/operational requirements, and timing of availability) related to HALEU. 5. Continue to interface with NEI and interested industry companies to determine the appropriate time to engage the NRC.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2018

PROPOSAL: P-1101 Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100)

We propose to build and install at Fermilab a next generation instrument that uses light pulse atom interferometry to search for physics beyond the Standard Model. In particular, we propose to search for dark matter and new forces, and to test some aspects of quantum mechanics in a new regime. The setup will exploit the existing 100m vertical NuMI access shaft, and will be an upgrade of the existing 10m-scale experiment at Stanford. Note that for many searches, the sensitivity of the experiment is proportional to baseline. To fully exploit the opportunity, we would use the latest advances in atomic clock technologies. The experiment would also provide an R&D platform for, and a critical step towards, the next-but-one generation experiment, which might possibly be located in a shaft at SURF in South Dakota, and which would be sufficiently sensitive to detect, in an unexplored frequency range, gravitational waves from known sources.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗