Results for “Security Considerations” — Page 5

DOE OSTI2024

An editorial to the Special Issue on “Severe climate Risks”

The history of this Special Issue (https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10JD7LNJNQ0) indirectly dates back to the early 1990s, when the signature of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change kicked-off an international political process based on one overarching and foundational principle: to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” at the global level. More than three decades later, such a principle remains central, though complementary aims made their way through the climate negotiation process, such as the importance of ensuring equity and justice, to give just one example here. Scientific knowledge also considerably progressed and we know more about the range of risks that climate change imposes and will continue to impose to the biosphere and humankind, worldwide and at all territorial levels. It is also clear that societal responses to these risks —“climate adaptation” as we know it— are increasingly happening, but definitely not at the pace of climate risk trends (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021, Erisken et al., 2021, Olazabal and Ruiz De Gopegui, 2021, Magnan et al., 2023a, Reckien et al., 2023, UNEP, 2023). As a result, concerns have emerged over the recent years in both the scientific and policy arenas around the idea that societies may not be able to address all climate risks, and that limits to adaptation and induced residual risks need to be considered more seriously. Such concerns further highlight the continuing importance of the imperative to minimise dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, at any scale. But what does “dangerous interference” mean? How can we decide that we are entering the “dangerous” space, compared to a broader range of climate risks that would qualify as problematic but not necessarily “dangerous”? Who should make such a decision? Which conditions drive risk severity over time, including in the future? And what would be the environmental, economic, social and cultural implications of prioritising some climate risks over others? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was a pioneer in addressing such questions through the development of the “Key Risks” framing that describes those climate risks having the potential to become dangerous or “severe” over the course of this century (Schellnhuber et al., 2006, Schneider et al., 2007, Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). The Fifth and Sixth assessment cycles (AR5 and AR6) went a step further by identifying about 120 Key Risks across regions and sectors, and clustering them into 8 “Representative Key Risks” covering a range of geographical systems (low-lying coasts, and to terrestrial and ocean ecosystems), sectors (critical infrastructure, living standards, human health, food security, and water security) and human dimensions (peace and mobility) (Oppenheimer et al., 2014, O’Neill et al., 2022). This Special Issue was born of the efforts of a range of authors, during the development of the IPCC AR6 main Assessment Report between 2019 and 2022, to characterise Key Risks and Representative Key Risks, and advance knowledge on what shapes “severe climate risks” conceptually as well as in the real-world. The series of papers forming this Special Issue is not intended to cover the topic exhaustively, but rather to give readers an overview through the following narrative: defining “severe climate risks” is highly challenging (Magnan et al., 2023b), but knowledge is expanding on the driving climate hazards (Tebaldi et al., 2023) and their implications on geographical systems, sectors and human dimensions, using here food security (Mirzabaev et al., 2023), human mobility (Gilmore et al., 2024) and peace (Buhaug et al., 2023) as illustrative examples. The overall intention is to support especially decision-makers, whatever the scale or sector considered, in asking severity-driven questions to identify sector- and context-specific “priority” risks from climate change.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Materials Characterization, Prediction, and Control Project: Characterization of 316L Stainless Steel after Solid Phase Processing using Ultrasonic NDE Method

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory undertook the Materials Characterization, Prediction, and Control Laboratory Directed Research and Development Project to advance understanding of nuclear material processing and enable multifold acceleration in the development and qualification of new material systems produced via advanced manufacturing methods, such as solid phase processing, for use in national security and advanced energy applications (Smith 2021). A motivation of the Materials Characterization, Prediction, and Control Project was to demonstrate ultrasonic testing as a nondestructive evaluation method to complement traditional destructive methods for characterizing material microstructure with emphasis on grain size determination using a method that may have future applications for real-time inline process monitoring. The objective of the work described in this report is to establish the process and an analysis method for measuring grain sizes of polycrystalline metals with ultrafine grains using ultrasonic shear wave backscattering, building on prior studies on coarser-grained material. The work involves five tasks: Measured ultrasonic backscattering experimentally for a series of 316L stainless steel specimens with various grain sizes made by friction stir processing. Calculated ultrasonic backscattering coefficients from experimental data based on a physical measurement model. Measured ground truth grain sizes of the specimens from electron backscatter diffraction grain boundary images using a generalization of the ASTM E112 (ASTM 2021) intercept method. Built a curve of ultrasonic backscattering coefficients versus the ground truth intercept-based grain sizes to determine the correlation between mean grain sizes and ultrasonic measurements. Demonstrated the ability of using the correlation curve to deduce grain sizes with measured ultrasonic backscattering coefficients for a few 316L stainless steel specimens whose grain sizes were unknown beforehand but were targeted to be an extrapolation to larger grain sizes than used to formulate the correlation curves. Experimental procedures and computational algorithms are developed and validated for these tasks. This work establishes an ultrasonic technique for characterizing material microstructure with ultrafine grains that are often resulted by solid-phase processing. The technique is nondestructive, and it has the potential to be used for real time inline process monitoring. This work successfully demonstrates the viability of an ultrasonic nondestructive evaluation method for microstructural characterization of material having ultrafine grain structure (as small as 1?mm) and produced by an advanced manufacturing method. This includes a demonstration of the method to extrapolate to other conditions. While not demonstrated here, the method is expected to be viable for in-line, or near-inline, process monitoring in advanced manufacturing applications with suitable consideration for access of instrumentation to the material being manufactured.

316 L Stainless Steel↗

DOE OSTI2025

Site Integration and Regulatory Considerations for an NPP Colocated with a Petroleum Refinery, Methanol Plant, and Wood Pulp Plant

This research explores the colocation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) with industrial applications. Three existing industrial sites were considered to demonstrate the siting process and illuminate technological gaps for future work. The three applications demonstrated for colocation here are a petroleum refinery, a methanol production plant, and a pulp and paper plant. This study uses a modified version of the EPRI siting criteria to explore the geological and demographic characteristics of the location of the current industrial site, as well as exploring external hazards from the industrial plant and its surrounding land use. Data was collected from public databases to estimate site characteristics. We then discuss how the site characteristics may impact the ability to colocate an NPP with an industrial application. The application site and 5 additional sites were explored for each application to give a general indication of the siting implications for an NPP in each area. The hazards for each industrial application was also explored to determine how colocation may impact reactor safety. The following gaps have been identified and should be explored in future research on colocation of NPPs with petroleum refineries, methanol plants, and pulp and paper plants: - There is a variety of industrial use, hazards, and pipelines in the surrounding area. A more thorough review of these hazards should be considered for colocation. - In general, the whole region around some applications seems to have softer soil, with implications for large site preparation costs. Further site investigations should prioritize looking into the geotechnical conditions. - Applications along coastlines are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. The benefits of colocation should be weighed against the potential design implications. - The benefits of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in place should be explored further. If heat supply from the NPP is not required or not feasible due to the distance between the NPP and the application, there may be an opportunity to supply hydrogen to the plant through an existing pipeline. - Because there are several collocated industrial plants in the regions for the refinery and methanol plant, the benefits of sharing resources from the NPP should be explored further. This may open up additional sites for colocation. The following knowledge gaps were identified for the colocation of NPPs with these three industries, and industrial applications in general. These gaps are: - While the STAND tool contains many important characteristics for the reactor siting process, it is not calibrated for the colocation of NPPs with industrial facilities. - There are aspects of both the NPP and industrial application that need to be quantified for a siting analysis. Particularly, we need to understand the water intake requirements for NPPs and each application. - Further work may focus on adapting the STAND site comparison methodology to comparison of sites for co-location. This will involve using the data documented in this report as a starting point and performing a comprehensive and quantitative comparison. - Without spending significant resources, it would be impossible to gather data for each site to evaluate all aspects of siting. One approach to finding data and understanding its implications to siting is looking at FSARs for existing plants. For example, most sites considered in this study have small Vs30 values, indicating soft soil. However, there are NPPs located in the vicinity of most of the sites (e.g., Waterford Steam Electric Station near New Orleans) and reviewing available site characteristics and geotechnical data for these NPPs, might provide further information for siting. - The siting analysis in this study indicates that colocation of the NPP with the industrial site could be difficult based on external hazards, cooling requirements, weather, or population. We need to determine the impact of distance between the two facilities on cost and quality of energy transport. - This study did not touch on socioeconomic impacts for NPP colocation with industrial facilities. The input-output analysis methodology could be applied to the communities referenced in this study to determine the socioeconomic impact of these projects. - Similarly, the impacts of colocation on emergency planning was not explored in this study. The impacts on emergency planning infrastructure are somewhat related to the socioeconomic impacts, and could be explored using a similar methodology. - This study also did not address physical and cybersecurity, which will be important aspects of co-location [ref] . Cybersecurity will be important, regardless of the distance, but physical security will be important if the facilities are located very closely. Physical security might also be important for the steam lines between the plants, unless they are determined to be non-safety significant. - In many site l

08 - HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2024

Site Integration and Regulatory Considerations for a Nuclear Power Plant Colocated with Industrial Facilities: Colocation Studies for a Petroleum Refinery, Methanol Plant, and Wood Pulp Plant

This research explores the colocation of nuclear power plants (NPPs) with industrial applications. Three existing industrial sites were considered to demonstrate the siting process and illuminate technological gaps for future work. The three applications demonstrated for colocation here are a petroleum refinery, a methanol production plant, and a pulp and paper plant. This study uses a modified version of the EPRI siting criteria to explore the geological and demographic characteristics of the location of the current industrial site, as well as exploring external hazards from the industrial plant and its surrounding land use. Data was collected from public databases to estimate site characteristics. We then discuss how the site characteristics may impact the ability to colocate an NPP with an industrial application. The application site and 5 additional sites were explored for each application to give a general indication of the siting implications for an NPP in each area. The hazards for each industrial application was also explored to determine how colocation may impact reactor safety. The following gaps have been identified and should be explored in future research on colocation of NPPs with petroleum refineries, methanol plants, and pulp and paper plants: - There is a variety of industrial use, hazards, and pipelines in the surrounding area. A more thorough review of these hazards should be considered for colocation. - In general, the whole region around some applications seems to have softer soil, with implications for large site preparation costs. Further site investigations should prioritize looking into the geotechnical conditions. - Applications along coastlines are susceptible to flooding and hurricanes. The benefits of colocation should be weighed against the potential design implications. - The benefits of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in place should be explored further. If heat supply from the NPP is not required or not feasible due to the distance between the NPP and the application, there may be an opportunity to supply hydrogen to the plant through an existing pipeline. - Because there are several collocated industrial plants in the regions for the refinery and methanol plant, the benefits of sharing resources from the NPP should be explored further. This may open up additional sites for colocation. The following knowledge gaps were identified for the colocation of NPPs with these three industries, and industrial applications in general. These gaps are: - While the STAND tool contains many important characteristics for the reactor siting process, it is not calibrated for the colocation of NPPs with industrial facilities. - There are aspects of both the NPP and industrial application that need to be quantified for a siting analysis. Particularly, we need to understand the water intake requirements for NPPs and each application. - Further work may focus on adapting the STAND site comparison methodology to comparison of sites for co-location. This will involve using the data documented in this report as a starting point and performing a comprehensive and quantitative comparison. - Without spending significant resources, it would be impossible to gather data for each site to evaluate all aspects of siting. One approach to finding data and understanding its implications to siting is looking at FSARs for existing plants. For example, most sites considered in this study have small Vs30 values, indicating soft soil. However, there are NPPs located in the vicinity of most of the sites (e.g., Waterford Steam Electric Station near New Orleans) and reviewing available site characteristics and geotechnical data for these NPPs, might provide further information for siting. - The siting analysis in this study indicates that colocation of the NPP with the industrial site could be difficult based on external hazards, cooling requirements, weather, or population. We need to determine the impact of distance between the two facilities on cost and quality of energy transport. - This study did not touch on socioeconomic impacts for NPP colocation with industrial facilities. The input-output analysis methodology could be applied to the communities referenced in this study to determine the socioeconomic impact of these projects. - Similarly, the impacts of colocation on emergency planning was not explored in this study. The impacts on emergency planning infrastructure are somewhat related to the socioeconomic impacts, and could be explored using a similar methodology. - This study also did not address physical and cybersecurity, which will be important aspects of co-location [ref] . Cybersecurity will be important, regardless of the distance, but physical security will be important if the facilities are located very closely. Physical security might also be important for the steam lines between the plants, unless they are determined to be non-safety significant. - In many site l

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 1, January-June 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 1 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part II: The State of the Nuclear Fuel Located Within the Chornobyl Sarcophagus, A A. Borovoi and A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 33 Nuclear Power Safety in Central and Eastern Europe, R. Wilson; 46 Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors in the Former Eastern European Countries, S. Chakraborty; 53 Technical Note: On the Definition of Common-Cause Failures, H. Paula; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 58 Modeling and Analysis of Core-Debris Recriticality During Hypothetical Severe Accidents in the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor, S.-H. Kim, V. Georgevich, D. B. Simpson, C. O. Slater, and R. P. Taleyarkhan; 68 Ignitability of Hydrogen/Oxygen/Diluent Mixtures in the Presence of Hot Surfaces, R. K. Kumar and G. W. Koroll; 94 Coupled RELAP5 and CONTAIN Accident Analysis Using PVM, K. A. Smith, A. J. Baratta, and G. E. Robinson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 109 Application of Fuzzy Logic in Nuclear Reactor Control Part I: An Assessment of State-of-the-Art, A. S. Heger, N. K. Alang-Rashid, and M. Jamshidi; DESIGN FEATURES: 122 Twenty-Third DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, and M. W. First; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 135 Atmospheric Dispersion and the Radiological Consequences of Normal Airborne Effluents from a Nuclear Power Plant, D. Fang, C. Z. Sun, and L. Yang; 142 Calculation of Distribution Coefficients for Radionuclides in Soils and Sediments, I. Puigdomenech and U. Bergstrom: OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 155 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 158 Operating Experience Feedback Report—Reliability of Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Standby Pumps Used in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, J. R. Boardman; 166 Turbine Building Hazards, H. L Ornstein; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 169 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 175 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 32 Harvard School of Public Health In-Place Filter Testing Workshop; 134 International Conference on Advances in the Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants; 193 30th Tennessee Industries Week; 193 DOE Technical Standards Program 1995 Workshop; 194 Multiphase Flow Experiments and Instrumentation; 180 The Authors; 185 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volumes 34 and 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Williston Basin Resource Study for Commercial-Scale Subsurface Hydrogen Storage

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the EERC’s State Energy Research Center (SERC), MPLX Operations LLC, and TC Energy Development Holdings Inc. (a subsidiary of TC Energy Corporation), studied the potential for subsurface hydrogen storage and recovery in the Williston Basin of western North Dakota. The project’s goal was to evaluate the feasibility of large-scale, secure geologic H 2 storage to support future hydrogen generation, storage, and use. This work included laboratory testing, H 2 –rock–fluid exposure experiments, literature reviews on H 2 embrittlement, and reservoir modeling and simulations. The study included an assessment of storage potential across three types of storage reservoirs using both reservoir simulation and DOE’s web-based tool SHASTA-HELP (Subsurface Hydrogen Assessment, Storage, and Technology Acceleration – Hydrogen Estimator for Logistical Planning), as well as investigation of potential H 2 production and markets for commercial-scale deployment. Building on prior EERC gas storage research, three storage options were selected for detailed evaluation: the Broom Creek Formation (a clastic saline reservoir), the Dickinson Lodgepole Mounds (DLM) complex (carbonate mud mound structures) of the Lodgepole Formation (an active oil and gas producing reservoir), and the Dunham Salt Interval of the Piper Formation (to be used for engineered salt cavern development). These targets were prioritized based on prior EERC research using datasets related to seal capacity, reservoir quality, mechanical integrity, and injectivity. Exposure tests on Broom Creek and DLM samples showed mineral dissolution and precipitation that increased brine salinity and altered reservoir rock surfaces. Although these results provide useful insight, they are limited by small sample sizes and short-term (30-day) exposure, requiring further study to assess long-term storage integrity. Salt formations were not tested because of their known nonreactivity and established mechanical stability. Results of reservoir simulations performed for a single site demonstrated that the Broom Creek Formation may be capable of receiving up to 42,000 tonnes of injected H 2 over 7 months via one well. H 2 recovery took place over 5 months, resulting in approximately 26,000 tonnes (~62% without cushion gas [CG]). This work suggests water production may be important and subsequent cycles of injection and production may perform more efficiently; however, significant site-specific work in the future is needed to assess actual reservoir performance of injection and withdrawal of H 2 storage. For oil reservoir potential, a multiple-well model was used to simulate injection of approximately 32,000 tonnes of H 2 into a single wellbore while simultaneously producing in place reservoir fluids from four offset wells to maintain reservoir pressure. The simulation results suggested a high recovery (~98%); in addition, cost advantages through existing infrastructure could be realized. Challenges in this reservoir include vi managing gas purity and leakage risks. In both scenarios, production of H 2 takes place in a single-well scenario with 10 cycles (7 months of injection and 5 months of production) over 10 years. Finally, the use of engineered caverns in the Dunhan Salt was evaluated, and the results suggest that while they have a smaller capacity (<1000 tonnes per cavern), they exhibit nearly complete gas recovery (>99%), fast response times, and low purity risk. While caverns in North Dakota may be smaller in capacity, fields can be developed in galleries to accommodate the volumetric needs and rapid turnaround times necessary to meet market demands. Geographic limitations and thin salt intervals in North Dakota may represent less total storage potential than salt domes elsewhere, but significant opportunities exist to expand this market for gas storage in North Dakota. A basinwide assessment was performed to estimate a first-of-its-kind value for H 2 storage on a large scale. DOE’s SHASTA-HELP, combined with EERC simulation work, was used to perform the assessment. Estimated H 2 storage potential varied widely for each formation type. The Broom Creek saline formation was estimated to have a storage potential of approximately 1.7–90.5 million tonnes (MMt). The DLM oil reservoirs were estimated to have 0.07–0.19 MMt of capacity. Notably, each of these estimates relies on significant assumptions regarding reservoir thickness, porosity, permeability, and CG needed for operation. Much research is needed to understand the true site-specific storage resource potential of each formation. Using the Dunham Salt Interval for cavern development may result in as much as 4.79 MMt (up to 2.87 MMt working gas) of H 2 storage potential. An important note for consideration is that the values presented here need significantly more geological characterization and engineering assessments prior to gaining confidence in performance. This will be a focal point for future research and development needs. The basinwide evaluation also indicated that North Dakota has significant H 2 generation potential, with estimates up to a possible 13 MMt annually, suggesting a substantial opportunity for H 2 market development and thus the need for commercial-scale H 2 storage to facilitate growth and resilience. Key Recommendations 1. Conduct detailed site characterization (3D seismic, well logs, core sampling) to reduce geologic uncertainty. 2. Perform techno-economic analyses incorporating market, regulatory, and incentive frameworks. 3. Investigate long-term interactions among H 2 , CGs, well materials, and formations to assess risks. 4. Develop pilot- and field-scale demonstrations to validate models and establish best practices.

03 NATURAL GAS↗