Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “state regulatory commissions”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Energy Emergency and Preparedness Data: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Quick Guidance on Crisis Communications

State Energy Offices and Public Utility Commissions rely on timely, accurate, and actionable information to perform their energy emergency response duties and execute their roles as state energy security planners. In support of this need, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissions (NARUC) hosted an Energy Security and Data Analysis Workshop in Washington, DC to identify energy security response and planning data sources; and to share successful methods of data use and integration in state, federal, and private sector tools. Following the workshop, NASEO and NARUC hosted two topical data-centric webinars based on state priorities to identify best practices in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Crisis Communications programs leveraged in energy assurance planning and response. The Crisis Communications webinar covered best practice tactics for how states can respond during energy emergencies and other crises. Based on the workshop and webinars, this document summarizes commonly used data sources and includes frequently asked questions which may be used by state energy officials (i.e., consisting of staff from Public Utility Commissions and Governor-designated State Energy Offices) to help guide them in developing or improving their Crisis Communications capabilities. A strong public information program is a key crisis management tool. Timely and accurate information helps prevent confusion and uncertainty and encourages public support and cooperation. As energy subject matter experts, state energy officials are vital in the distilling, clarifying, and conveying energy sector information and implications to decision-makers and the public. Other participants in an effective public information program include the Governor’s Office, other state agencies, local governments, energy providers, local businesses, state legislature, and the federal government. It is essential to provide stakeholders and the public with information about the nature, severity, and duration of an emergency because inadequate understanding and awareness can lead to undesirable actions that could further exacerbate the situation. Before a state government can provide information to the public, it must gather information, describe the emergency accurately, and develop recommendations to manage the situation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

An Overview of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Uncertainty Assessment Accident Progression Insights

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) have completed three uncertainty analyses (UAs) as part of the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) program. The SOARCA UAs included an integrated evaluation of uncertainty in accident progression, radiological release, and offsite health consequence projections. The UA for Peach Bottom, a boiling-water reactor (BWR) with a Mark I containment located in the State of Pennsylvania, analyzed the unmitigated long-term station blackout SOARCA scenario. The UA for Sequoyah, a 4-loop Westinghouse pressurized-water reactor (PWR) located in the State of Tennessee, analyzed the unmitigated short-term station blackout SOARCA scenario, with a focus on issues unique to the ice condenser containment and the potential for early containment failure due to hydrogen deflagration. The UA for Surry, a 3-loop Westinghouse PWR with a sub-atmospheric large dry containment located in the State of Virginia, analyzed the unmitigated short-term station blackout SOARCA scenario including the potential for thermally-induced steam-generator tube rupture. These three UAs are currently documented in three NUREG/CR reports. This report provides input to planned NRC documentation on the insights and findings from the SOARCA UA program. The purpose of the summary report is to provide a useful reference for regulatory applications that require the evaluation of offsite consequence risk from beyond design basis event severe accidents. This report focuses on the accident progression and source term insights developed from the MELCOR analyses. MELCOR is the NRC's best-estimate, severe accident computer code used in the SOARCA UAs. In anticipation of the SOARCA UA insights work, NRC and Sandia benchmarked the response of the Peach Bottom model to selected reference calculations from the Peach Bottom SOARCA UA. Peach Bottom was the first SOARCA UA performed and was completed in 2015 using the MELCOR 1.8.6 code. The PWR SOARCA UAs evolved the original methodology and utilized the updated MELCOR 2.2 computer code. The Peach Bottom model has been systematically updated for other NRC research efforts and has been updated to MELCOR 2.2. computer code. The findings from the new reference calculations using the updated model with the MELCOR 2.2 code are also integrated into the report. A second objective is an assessment of the applicability of the results to the other nuclear reactors in the U.S. As the key findings are reviewed, judgments are presented on the applicability of the results to other U.S. nuclear power plants. An important objective of the SOARCA program relied on high- fidelity plant-specific modeling. However, the nature of the insights and conclusions allowed judgements to be made on the applicability of the various insights to the same general classification of plant (i.e., BWR or PWR) or the entire fleet of plants. Finally, the results from the SOARCA UA accident progression calculations contain a wealth of information not previously documented in the NUREG/CRs. This report includes new but related information that can be used to benchmark past or support future regulatory decisions related to severe accidents. The new work includes a benchmark of the NUREG-1465 licensing source term definitions, the variability of key accident progression events and timing to radionuclide release, and an improved understanding of the timing and source terms from consequential steam generator tube ruptures. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Sandia authors gratefully acknowledge the significant technical and programmatic contributions from the NRC SOARCA team which are reflected throughout the report. Dr. Tina Ghosh has been involved throughout the SOARCA UAs, providing the primary managerial and technical oversight. The long lists of NRC and Sandia contributors from the SOARCA UAs are cited in the three NUREG/CRs and are also gratefully acknowledged by the small team of authors compiling the results of their efforts. Significant technical contributions, advice, and reviews were provided by Dr. Hossein Esmaili, Dr. Alfred Hathaway, and Dr. Edward Fuller (retired) of the NRC. Dr. Randal Gauntt (retired), Mr. Patrick Mattie, Mr. Joseph Jones (retired), and Dr. Doug Osborn from Sandia are recognized as the SOARCA UA managers guiding the past efforts. There is a comparable list of project managers at the NRC including Ms. Patricia Santiago, Dr. Salman Haq, and Mr. Jon Barr. Sadly, we have lost Mr. Charlie Tinkler and Mr. Robert Prato, who were important contributors to the original SOARCA project. Finally, Mr. Kyle Ross and Mr. Mark Leonard have also retired but were significant technical contributors. Mr. Kyle Ross was the technical lead on all three SOARCA UAs and the original pressurized water reactor SOARCA study. Mr. Leonard was the technical lead on the original boiling water reactor SOARCA study and a key contributor to the first Peach Bottom SOARCA UA. iv

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

U.S. Efforts in Support of Examinations at Fukushima Daiichi - November 2025 Meeting Notes

Fifteen years have passed since the March 11, 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) triggered a tsunami that inundated the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (Daiichi or 1F) and led to severe accidents in multiple units at the plant. During these fifteen years since these events, Daiichi forensics examinations and evaluations have revealed many insights for enhancing the safety of nuclear power plants worldwide. However, uncertainties remain regarding the events after the GEJE. Additional Daiichi forensics information is required to inform future Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) activi- ties conducted by the plant owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated (TEPCO Hold- ings). This forensics information also has important implications for the safety and operation of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. A collaborative U.S. and Japanese effort, which includes approximately 50 experts in reactor safety and plant operations, was initiated in 2014 by the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (U.S. DOE-NE) to identify Daiichi examination needs and evaluate recent Daiichi examination data to address these needs. This collaborative effort, which is beneficial to the U.S. and Japan, continues as Japan moves forward with D&D activities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

MatLib-1.2: Nuclear Material Properties Library

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the computer code Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and Transients (FAST) to model steady-state and transient fuel behavior to support regulatory decisions. FAST relies on a material properties library (MatLib) that contains the thermal and mechanical properties of the nuclear materials and coolants of interest to support the US commercial nuclear industry. MatLib contains properties for a variety of nuclear fuels, cladding and other structural materials, gases, and coolants. In this document, material property correlations for the materials contained within MatLib are presented and discussed. When available, comparisons are made between the material property correlations and available data. Additionally, uncertainties are quantified on the material proper- ties, which is then used by the NRC to support uncertainty quantification for best-estimate plus uncertainty safety evaluation reviews. This document describes MatLib-1.2, which was updated from MatLib-1.1 to include cleanup of the code for streamlined calls to MatLib from the main FAST source code, and to enable easier readability of the code by developers that maintain and enhance the FAST code. The results of MatLib did not change between MatLib-1.1 and MatLib-1.2; however, the source code changes warranted incrementing the minor numbering of the software version number. The changes may result in faster execution times of FAST-1.2 as compared to FAST-1.1. This document is one of a series of documents on FAST; the other documents detail the models used by FAST as well as its integral assessment to experiments and commercial data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

MatLib-1.0: Nuclear Material Properties Library

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the computer code Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and Transients (FAST) to model steady-state and transient fuel behavior to support regulatory decisions. FAST relies on a material properties library (MatLib) that contains the thermal and mechanical properties of the nuclear materials and coolants of interest to support the US commercial nuclear industry. MatLib contains properties for a variety of nuclear fuels, cladding and other structural materials, gases, and coolants. In this document, material property correlations for the materials contained within MatLib are presented and discussed. When available, comparisons are made between the material property correlations and available data. Additionally, uncertainties are quantified on the material properties, which is then used by the NRC to support uncertainty quantification for best-estimate plus uncertainty safety evaluation reviews. This document describes MatLib-1.0, which is the first official version of the MatLib library. This document is one of a series of documents on FAST; the other documents detail the models used by FAST as well as its integral assessment to experiments and commercial data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

MatLib-1.1: Nuclear Material Properties Library: Developed under NQA-1-2017

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses the computer code Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and Transients (FAST) to model steady-state and transient fuel behavior to support regulatory decisions. FAST relies on a material properties library (MatLib) that contains the thermal and mechanical properties of the nuclear materials and coolants of interest to support the US commercial nuclear industry. MatLib contains properties for a variety of nuclear fuels, cladding and other structural materials, gases, and coolants. In this document, material property correlations for the materials contained within MatLib are presented and discussed. When available, comparisons are made between the material property correlations and available data. Additionally, uncertainties are quantified on the material properties, which is then used by the NRC to support uncertainty quantification for best-estimate plus uncertainty safety evaluation reviews. This document describes MatLib-1.1, which was updated from MatLib-1.0 to include the addition of Lua functionality and code changes for integration with FAST. The results of MatLib did not change between MatLib-1.0 and MatLib-1.1; however, the source code changes warranted incrementing the minor numbering of the software version number. This document is one of a series of documents on FAST; the other documents detail the models used by FAST as well as its integral assessment to experiments and commercial data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Simulation of Physics-Based 0-10Hz Strong Motion Using High Performance Computing Supporting Refinements to Regional Ground Motion Models for the Central Eastern US

In collaboration with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) the LLNL has developed a computationally efficient simulation platform designed to perform physics-based ground motion simulations for crustal earthquakes in the Stable Continental Regions of Central and Eastern US (CEUS), using high-performance computing. The main objective of the earthquake simulations was to use synthetic ground motion to provide constrains to refinements of existing ergodic Ground Motion Models (GMMs), for large magnitude earthquakes and near-fault distances, for which these models are less reliable. Physics-based broadband (0-10Hz) ground motion simulations were used to estimate the near-fault ground motion amplitudes and within event and between-event variabilities associated with fault rupture characteristics. In our simulations we used a 3D regional velocity model that was based on Saikia’s 1D velocity model (1994). In simulations performed during the first stage of this project the Saikia’s velocity model demonstrated better performance in modelling high frequency regional wave propagation for the CEUS region recorded during the Mw5.0 November 7, 2016, Cushing Oklahoma (Taylor et al., 2017), and Mw5.8 September 3, 2016, Pawnee Oklahoma earthquakes. The proposed regional 3D model includes random perturbations to the 1D background model using the stochastic scheme of Pitarka and Mellors (2021). In addition, validation analysis of the rupture generator and regional wave propagation models, using comparisons with different GMMs for Mw6.5 and Mw7.0 scenario earthquakes in the CEUS region resulted in a very good match between the simulated and empirical ground motion models. For the purposes of seismic hazard assessment at the existing and planned nuclear power plants, NRC is interested in studies aimed at improving the current ground motion models (GMM) for both Stable Continental Regions (SCR) in the Central and Eastern US and Active Crustal Regions (ACR) in the Western US. Due to lack of recorded data, these improvements require synthetic data for short fault distances and large magnitude earthquakes for which the existing recorded data is not enough to uniquely constrain the GMMs. The need for simulations and strong motion data is especially critical for the CEUS region where we do not have recorded data from potentially large damaging earthquakes with moment magnitudes 6.0 and higher. In this the project, we focused on 10Hz simulations of Mw7.0 scenario earthquakes with strike slip and thrust faulting mechanisms. We used more than 50 Mw7.0 earthquake rupture scenarios to investigate the ground motion uncertainty due to unknown earthquake rupture parameters, in particular, the slip distribution, rupture velocity, and faulting mechanism, and their implication on ground motion amplification due to forward rupture directivity effects.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Comparison of the Environmental Effects of Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped storage hydropower (PSH) capabilities are generally characterized as either open-loop or closed-loop. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defines open-loop PSH as “continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature,” and closed-loop PSH as “not continuously connected to a naturally flowing water feature.” All the PSH projects constructed in the United States to date are open-loop, so the potential environmental effects of closed-loop systems are not as well documented as the effects of open-loop systems. To address this knowledge gap, the DOE Water Power Technologies Office, under its HydroWIRES Initiative, has prepared this report to: (1) compare the potential environmental effects of open-loop PSH projects with those of closed-loop PSH projects; (2) describe how these effects are being avoided, minimized, or mitigated at existing projects in other countries and proposed projects in the United States; and (3) discuss the relative significance of the environmental issues. The report begins with a brief introduction on the current status of PSH development in the United States. Next, the report describes the current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower licensing process, emphasizing some recent regulatory changes that affect closed-loop PSH development. The report then provides a summary comparison of the environmental effects of constructing and operating open-loop and closed-loop PSH systems and discusses the relative significance of those issues. This comparison and discussion are based on the results of a literature review and a review of FERC licensing records. The literature review includes journal articles, technical reports, and presentations on the environmental effects of PSH systems. It includes literature from the United States as well as countries where closed-loop PSH projects have been constructed. The FERC records review examines the FERC licensing record (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act documents and license orders) to identify the environmental effects anticipated and mitigation measures proposed for six of the closed-loop PSH projects currently licensed or permitted in the United States. For comparison, the FERC records review also discusses the environmental effects and mitigation measures for four open-loop PSH projects proposed or currently operating in the United States. The comparison of effects between open-loop and closed-loop projects is relative; that is, it characterizes the impacts of each project type as generally lower or higher than another project type. The comparison reflects general trends among project types because there are sometimes exceptions to the examples cited. The comparison is based on both spatial (location) and temporal (duration) factors and reflects both the severity and likelihood of effects. The report concludes that the environmental effects of closed-loop PSH projects are generally lower (i.e., more localized and of shorter duration) than those of open-loop PSH projects because they are located “off-stream,” minimizing aquatic and terrestrial impacts, and often have greater siting flexibility than open-loop PSH projects. For certain closed-loop project designs, however, impacts to groundwater may be higher relative to open-loop projects and should be considered in any environmental review.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Concrete Testing Case for Closure of Handford’s 241-C Underground Storage Tanks

Sixty percent of the nation's highly toxic and radioactive mixed wastes are stored at Hanford in 177 deteriorating underground storage tanks. To close or remove these storage tanks from service and place them in a condition that is protective of human health and the environment, the tanks must be physically stabilized to prevent subsidence once wastes have been retrieved. Remaining residual liquid waste in the tanks that cannot be removed must be solidified and the solid wastes encapsulated to meet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Washington requirements. The Department of Energy has developed cementitious flowable concretes to restrict access and provide chemical stabilization for radionuclides. Formulation, laboratory, and field testing for application at Hanford began with flowable, self-leveling structural and non-structural fills. A slump flow equal to or greater than 610 mm, 0% bleed water, and 0.1% (by volume) shrinkage measurements were key parameters guiding reformulation efforts that resulted in highly flowable, self-consolidating concretes that met Hanford 241-C Tank closure short- and long-term regulatory and engineering performance requirements.

formula development↗
DOE OSTI2022

Integrated Issues and Risk Management: A Theoretical Framework Overview

The contractor requirements document for DOE O 226.1B, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, requires DOE/NNSA contractors to establish an assurance system that includes, among other things, “Rigorous, risk-informed, and credible self-assessment and feedback and improvement activities. Assessment programs must be risk-informed, formally described and documented, and appropriately cover potentially high consequence activities” and “Contains an issues management process that is capable of categorizing the significance of findings based on risk and priority and other appropriate factors….” However, the term “risk-informed” is not defined in this or any other DOE order, and no formal guidance on how to integrate the two concepts currently exists. The Risk Management Guide for Defense Programs released by NA-18, Office of Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I), states it is “a framework and general guidance to program office personnel on the effective management of program risks and issues”, however it then defines issues as “events with 100% likelihood of affecting program objectives” and states “unless specified otherwise, the term “risk” will also serve to represent issues for the remainder of this plan,” severally limiting its ability to provide adequate guidance on this topic. Outside of DOE scope, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) imposes similar requirements. ASME NQA-1-2015 Requirement 16 states “Conditions adverse to quality shall be identified promptly and corrected as soon as practicable. In the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition shall be determined, and corrective action taken to preclude recurrence. The identification, cause, and corrective action for significant conditions adverse to quality shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management. Completion of corrective actions shall be verified”. The purpose of this document is to provide a best-in-class framework for an integrated risk and issues management process. This process would provide a robust feedback loop between risk management and issues management to: Enhance risk identification and characterization, use risk handling principles to improve corrective action planning, and ensure regulatory compliance.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Dose Assessment Model for Radioactive Waste Exposed by Gully Erosion at West Valley - 20513

The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC), located approximately 48 km south of Buffalo, New York, is the site of a former nuclear fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility. Spent nuclear fuel was processed there from 1966 to 1972, leaving behind radioactive and chemical wastes in two disposal areas and a waste tank farm. Site operations also resulted in releases of radioactivity to site soils, groundwater, and to surface waters draining the site. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are collaborating in a process of decision making for decommissioning those facilities remaining at the WNYNSC following the completion of Phase 1 decommissioning. Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) was contracted to develop a probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) computer model to assist the agencies in this process. The PPA Model includes a contaminant transport component focusing on the movement of contaminants within and among environmental media including groundwater and surface water transport, contaminant translocation by plants and animals, diffusion, and erosion. The model also includes evaluation of potential exposure and health effects for a Resident Farmer exposure scenario, where the Resident Farmer represents a critical group, described as that group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances. The West Valley Site is located in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau region of western New York State. The waste reprocessing and disposal areas were constructed on a relatively fat area of plateau dissected by drainages of Buttermilk Creek, including Erdman Brook, Franks Creek, and Quarry Creek. An important aspect of the contaminant transport component of the PPA model is consideration of erosive processes such as slumping of the stream slopes and the advance of gullies from these streams. These erosion processes remove material from the plateau, growing the size of the creek valleys and making them wider and deeper. Of particular interest for the impact of erosion is radioactive waste contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA), the New York State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA), and residual radiological inventory in the underground storage tanks at the Waste Tank Farm (WTF). The PPA Model is organized around geographically-defined facilities which were constructed upon the plateau, including the NDA, SDA, and WTF. Ongoing stream erosion processes will potentially transfer radioactive waste and residual inventory from these facilities to the ground surface on adjacent hillslope areas where erosion has breached the facility. Hence, it is important to evaluate the consequences of potential exposures to a Resident Farmer on the hillslopes below a breached facility. Two interrelated aspects of the dose assessment model related to hillslope exposure are discussed: 1) representation of the physical processes related to transport of radionuclides from facilities onto the hillslopes, and from the hillslopes into adjoining creeks where contaminated material migrates downstream with surface water and sediment, and; 2) adaptation of the activities associated with the Resident Farmer scenario to assess potential exposures to contamination in the hillslope areas. This discussion will cover the conceptual basis of the hillslope exposure and transport models, and also implementation in the PPA computer model. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Chemical Process Safety at TRISO-Based, Metal-Based, and Salt-Based Fuel Fabrication Facilities: Technical Assessment and Guidance Assessment

As part of efforts to prepare for potential and ongoing safety reviews for licensing of advanced non-light-water reactor fuel cycles, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tasked Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to prepare an assessment on the state of knowledge of potential chemical processes at fuel cycle facilities supporting the front end of these fuel cycles, and to assess the associated regulatory guidance. This report provides a technical assessment of chemical process safety considerations to support NRC licensing reviews of fabrication processes for tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) based, metallic-based, and salt-based fuels. The assessments involved collecting publicly available information on the fuel fabrication processes to (i) identify the operational process steps, characteristics and chemicals involved, (ii) identify the physical safety considerations and health safety considerations during licensing reviews of the various process steps, and (iii) collect information to support assessments of severity of accidents and potential mitigative measures to be implemented. The assessment provides a foundational basis on chemical process safety considerations for advanced fuel fabrication activities, although it is recognized that licensing reviews may necessitate design-specific considerations. The specific conditions under which chemical hazards emerge will require process-specific considerations, highlighting the importance of process-informed interpretation. The assessment also determined that exposure guidelines and limits to assess the consequences of acute exposures are limited for some chemicals, although alternative limits and supplementary information from databases or safety data sheets provide sufficient information to evaluate consequences of acute exposures. In addition, it was identified that metallic and salt fuel fabrication processes may involve beryllium, which is an exposure hazard. The regulatory framework for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities, per 10 CFR Part 70 Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, is deemed robust and flexible to address the chemical safety considerations in this report. A review was conducted on various regulatory guidance and technical basis documents. This included reviewing NUREG-1520, Revision 2, Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications – Final Report and the process descriptions in Appendix A of NUREG/CR-6410, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook, to address advanced fuel types. As new fuels will involve process-specific chemical uses, process-specific considerations are provided in this report. Additionally, it is noted that the U.S. Department of Energy protective action criteria database includes Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEELs) for process-specific chemicals. This report provides technical information to support chemical safety assessments of new advanced fuel cycle facilities and identifies technical and safety information to support licensing reviews. No regulatory barriers were identified for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing Transmission of Acoustic Signals to Monitor Internal Conditions of Canisters for Dry Storage of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel

Safe storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is critical to the nuclear fuel cycle and the future of nuclear energy. In the United States, SNF is stored primarily via two methods regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: wet storage in SNF pools and dry storage in dry cask storage systems (DCSSs). After about five years of cooling in spent fuel pools, the fuel assemblies are transferred into DCSSs, and the systems are filled with helium and sealed by welding. Deterioration of conditions inside of a DCSS is reflected in changes in the internal gas properties; this motivates the development of acoustic techniques to monitor internal gas properties, over extended storage periods, using sensors mounted on the exterior of the storage packages. However, a major challenge in collecting acoustic signals is the impedance mismatch between the steel canister shell and the gas. Only a small fraction of the ultrasonic signal can be transmitted through the gas medium. This paper documents experimental studies conducted on a full-scale canister mock-up to capture the gas-borne signals. Damping materials were pasted on the outside, and blocking and unblocking tests were conducted to identify the gas-borne signal. The results show that the excitation frequency plays an important role in maximizing the gas-borne signals. The gas-borne signal was successfully detected at around the theoretical time-of-flight. A high signal-to-noise ratio was achieved in the measurements. Next, the acoustic impedance matching layers were introduced, and the gas signal was drastically improved compared with that using no AIM layers.

Spent nuclear fuel (SNF), Canisters, Internal cond↗
DOE OSTI2021

An Examination of the Hydropower Licensing and Federal Authorization Process

Site-permitting and regulation are necessary to ensure hydropower projects (both original and relicensed) comply with statutory requirements and address multiple stakeholder priorities that consider a range of factors, including water quality, species protection, cultural resource impacts, and recreation. However, the time involved in acquiring a license for an individual hydropower project can be highly variable by project, leading to increased project costs, financial risks, and uncertainties. In part, this variability is the result of a regulatory structure that has evolved over time to include multiple approvals and compliance requirements administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), federal land management agencies, federal and state resource agencies, and Indian Tribes. Ultimately, the time, benefits, costs, and risks to developers associated with hydropower regulatory processes and/or the preparation (e.g., studies) required for regulatory agency review are not well documented or synthesized in the public domain, which may increase uncertainty and variability within the process. This report addresses these needs by presenting results of a comprehensive examination of hydropower licensing including quantitative and qualitative analyses of timelines, causal factors, and their combined effect on risk and costs to developers.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Enabling Solar Cybersecurity Solutions Through State Energy Office and Public Utility Commission Engagement with Private Sector Partners (Final Technical Report)

Between 2020 and 2025, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), together with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) established and managed the Enabling Solar Cybersecurity Solutions Through State Energy Office and Public Utility Commission Engagement with Private Sector Partners project, later informally retitled and recognized as the Cybersecurity Advisory Team for State Solar (CATSS). This effort convened State Energy Offices, Public Utility Commissions, and critical private sector and federal partners to inform the development of solar cybersecurity education and action-oriented resources for states. This is the final report.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

TRACE Input Modernization

This work presents a Tom’s Obvious Minimal Language (TOML)-based representation of input for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s TRAC/RELAP Advanced Computational Engine (TRACE) thermal hydraulics code. Implemented using the Workbench Analysis Sequence Processor (WASP), the approach maps traditional TRACE input structures to a hierarchical format composed of named parameters, typed values, and native data collections. The resulting representation preserves TRACE’s existing modeling capabilities while providing a modern, structured interface for model development and management. WASP further extends TOML through a file import directive that supports modular model composition and reusable input organization. In addition, WASP provides extended array data entry convenience with various data repeat and interpolation capabilities. Examples of the new TOML syntax are provided for major TRACE input categories, including hydraulic components, heat structures, control systems, and trip logic. The TOML representation establishes a foundation for improved validation, tooling, automation, and model maintainability while remaining compatible with existing TRACE workflows. To facilitate migration to the TOML-based input format, the TRACE executable now supports conversion of native TRACE input into an intermediate JSON representation. A Python utility subsequently transforms the JSON data into an equivalent TOML model. Lastly, the TRACE executable now supports execution using TOML-formatted input.

Lefebvre, Robert A. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electricity Market of the Future: Potential North American Designs Without Fuel Costs

Electricity markets across the United States and Canada have evolved since their inception in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Not all states and provinces moved toward restructured organized electricity markets, but rather those that have belonged to markets operated by independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations, with designs developed through stakeholder processes and approved through state, provincial, or federal agencies, such as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗