Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Building Regulatory Programs”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Explore: An Advanced Computing Agenda for Competitiveness

Over the course of this three-year grant, the Council on Competitiveness (Council) hosted six meetings of its Advanced Computing Roundtable made up of experts from a broad cross section of advanced computing users and manufacturers, and four Advanced Computing for Competitiveness Regional Forums to explore issues related to advanced computing in regions, states and localities. More than two hundred experts, stakeholders and policymakers from the federal and state levels participated in this work and provided their time and expertise to help define the opportunity in advanced computing and the barriers to it reaching its full potential as a game-changing competitive advantage for the United States economy and national security. Building on the insights of the Council’s Advanced Computing Roundtable and findings and recommendations from the four U.S. Department of Energy-supported Forums, the Council has identified several broad policy objectives for the United States related to advanced computing leadership and implementation. The United States must: Compete at the high end of advanced computing. Continue investing to be a technology leader as the world moves toward exascale computing, including in hardware, software and applications. America also must lead in strategic areas like extending Moore’s Law and quantum computing. Improve the ability of HPC-using firms to leverage advanced computing. The Council recommends steps to improve computational skills, increase industry partnerships with laboratories and academia, and expand and strengthen software partnerships. Regulatory agencies also should accelerate efforts to use modeling and simulation within the regulatory process. Expand the number of HPC-using companies in America. Too few firms are able to leverage advanced computing to innovate and compete. Federal, state and local economic development efforts should be utilized to lower barriers and teach small and medium-sized firms, particularly manufacturers, to use advanced modeling, simulation and analytics. Coordinate federal action. Federal agencies should continue to act in a coordinated fashion on advanced computing challenges through the Joint Program Office for Strategic Computing. Leverage HPC to compete in strategic technologies and applications. Leadership in advanced computing is tightly linked to leadership in artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, cybersecurity, additive manufacturing and other emerging technologies. Public and private sector leaders should collaborate on research and partnership efforts that ensure world-class computing environments for strategic technology leadership.

advanced computing↗
DOE OSTI2012

Integrated Genome-Based Studies of Shewanella Echophysiology (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 is a motile, facultative γ-Proteobacterium with remarkable respiratory versatility; it can utilize a range of organic and inorganic compounds as terminal electronacceptors for anaerobic metabolism. The ability to effectively reduce nitrate, S0, polyvalent metals andradionuclides has established MR-1 as an important model dissimilatory metal-reducing microorganism for genome-based investigations of biogeochemical transformation of metals and radionuclides that are of concern to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites nationwide. Metal-reducing bacteria such as Shewanella also have a highly developed capacity for extracellular transfer of respiratory electrons to solid phase Fe and Mn oxides as well as directly to anode surfaces in microbial fuel cells. More broadly, Shewanellae are recognized free-living microorganisms and members of microbial communities involved in the decomposition of organic matter and the cycling of elements in aquatic and sedimentary systems. To function and compete in environments that are subject to spatial and temporal environmental change, Shewanella must be able to sense and respond to such changes and therefore require relatively robust sensing and regulation systems. The overall goal of this project is to apply the tools of genomics, leveraging the availability of genome sequence for 18 additional strains of Shewanella , to better understand the ecophysiology and speciation of respiratory-versatile members of this important genus. To understand these systems we propose to use genome-based approaches to investigate Shewanella as a system of integrated networks; first describing key cellular subsystems - those involved in signal transduction, regulation, and metabolism - then building towards understanding the function of whole cells and, eventually, cells within populations. As a general approach, this project will employ complimentary "top-down" - bioinformatics-based genome functional predictions, high-throughput expression analyses, and functional genomics approaches to uncover key genes as well as metabolic and regulatory networks. The "bottom-up" component employs more traditional approaches including genetics, physiology and biochemistry to test or verify predictions. This information will ultimately be linked to analyses of signal transduction and transcriptional regulatory systems and used to develop a linked model that will contribute to understanding the ecophysiology of Shewanella in redox stratified environments. A central component of this effort is the development of a data and knowledge integration environment that will allow investigators to query across the individual research domains, link to analysis applications, visualize data in a cell systems context, and produce new knowledge, while minimizing the effort, time and complexity to participating institutions.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews the human factors engineering (HFE) aspects of nuclear power plants in accordance with the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition). The Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model (NUREG-0711, Revision 3, issued November 2012) contains detailed design review procedures. As part of the review process, the interfaces between plant personnel and the plant's systems and components are evaluated for conformance with HFE guidelines. This document, Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700, Revision 3), provides the guidelines necessary to perform this evaluation. The review guidelines address the physical and functional characteristics of human-system interfaces (HSIs). Because these guidelines only address the HFE aspects of design and not other related considerations, such as instrumentation and control and structural design, they are referred to as HFE guidelines. In addition to the review of actual HSIs, the NRC staff can use the NUREG-0700 guidelines to evaluate a design-specific HFE guidelines document or style guide. The HFE guidelines are organized into four basic parts, which are divided into sections. Part I contains guidelines for the basic HSI elements: information displays, user-interface interaction and management, and analog displays and controls. These elements are used as building blocks to develop HSI systems to serve specific functions. Part II contains the guidelines for reviewing the following HSI systems: alarm system, safety parameter display system, group-view display system, soft control system, computer-based procedure system, automation system, and communication system. Part III provides guidelines for the review of workstations and workplaces. Part IV provides guidelines for the review of HSI support (i.e., maintainability of digital systems and degraded HSI and instrumentation and control conditions).

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Post-closure Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluations for Disposition of Criticality Control Overpacks at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is a geological repository in southern New Mexico that provides for disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes from atomic energy defense activities. The Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) Report, Consideration of Nuclear Criticality When Disposing of Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, addresses nuclear criticality safety based on the projected inventory characteristics for the initial compliance certification application of WIPP in 1996. As the inventory, waste forms, and disposal package designs change, revised or new analyses are necessary to demonstrate acceptability for these configurations within the WIPP safety basis and compliance with 10,000-year post-closure standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Saylor and Scaglione evaluated criticality control overpacks (CCOs) in 2017 based on conservative assumptions for post-closure repository structural conditions with resulting effects on containers and container spacing, The Saylor and Scaglione evaluation of CCOs addressed a single waste configuration that represents the Surplus Plutonium Disposition Program’s dilute and dispose waste form and composition. This initial CCO study demonstrated that 50 grams of boron carbide (B 4 C) per CCO is sufficient to ensure post-closure criticality safety based on a well-mixed waste composition, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) subsequently determined that this amount of B 4 C does not require constraints on moisture or plastic present as moderator. The Saylor and Scaglione analysis conservatively assumes repository room closure that eliminates all space between fissile gram equivalent (FGE) 239 Pu masses. The close-packed array was selected based on limited availability of repository salt creep modeling results at that time. In 2019, Brickner provided additional evaluations for pipe overpack containers (POCs), building on the conservative basis provided by Saylor and Scaglione. Brickner’s 2019 analysis made use of new geomechanical data for post-closure spacing that rely on advances in repository modeling as documented in the work by Reedlunn and Bean. This current CCO evaluation for generic waste materials expands on earlier work performed at ORNL and includes evaluation of CCOs across a much broader range of possible waste compositions and geometries. This evaluation is intended to provide input for the required feature, event and process (FEP) screening to determine if post-closure criticality must be included as an event in the 10,000-year regulatory evaluation. As such, the approach to modeling post-closure criticality presented in this report has been coordinated with the Sandia team responsible for FEP screening. The resulting analysis supports disposition of fissile materials in the CCO containing up to 380 FGE 239 Pu and expands conditions acceptable for disposal of fissile material in CCOs. This evaluation builds on the methodology of Saylor and Scaglione and Brickner, using the most recently available geomechanical data for CCO spacing under salt creep compaction scenarios provided by Reedlunn and Bean. The broad range of fissile material configurations analyzed in this report are intended to account for configurations that may occur during the post-closure disposal time period, and it also includes waste configurations that are not physically possible to support analysis of conditions that influence neutron fluence.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Expansion of Hazards and Probabilistic Risk Assessments of a Light-Water Reactor Coupled with Electrolysis Hydrogen Production Plants

This report builds upon the body of work sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Light-Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Flexible Power Operation and Generation (FPOG) program that presented generic probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) for the addition of a heat extraction system (HES) to light-water reactors to support the co-location of a high temperature hydrogen electrolysis facility (HTEF). Probabilistic and deterministic hazards assessments and risk analyses are leveraged throughout this report. Several improvements and new analyses are included in this report. First, higher amounts of detail in the specifications of the generic HTEFs are used to produce scaled results for a 100, 500, and 1000 MW nominal hydrogen production facility. An additional hazard assessment of 1000 kg of hydrogen storage is performed. The facility hazards and footprint are assessed to determine the safe distance required for placement near the nuclear power plant (NPP). Second, specific designs for corresponding HESs for the different levels of support required by the HTEFs are analyzed in the PRA model. Third, a hazards analysis of the specified HTEFs leads not only to effects of the quantified risk assessment for the NPP, but also qualitative hazards assessment for the community. Finally, a seismic analysis and a high winds analysis have each been added to the PRA. The results investigate the applicability of the potential licensing approaches which do not require a full United States (U.S.) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing review. The PRAs are generic and include listed assumptions. The HTEF design built for this project has further eliminated many conservative assumptions from the prior PRAs in this series. The PRA results indicate that the 10 CFR 50.59 licensing approach is justified due to the minimal increase in initiating event frequencies for all design basis accidents, with none exceeding 7.7%. The PRA results for core damage frequency and large early release frequency support the use of NRC Regulation Guide 1.174 as further risk information that supports a change without a full licensing amendment review. The hazard analyses and PRA confirm the need for engineered blast barriers of storage tanks and the common production header leaving the HTEF. The hazards analyses and PRA also confirm with high confidence that using the assumptions of design in this report that the safety case for licensing an HES addition and an HTEF sited with its unprotected high-pressure stage components 187 meters from the NPP’s transmission towers (the most fragile structure, system, and component) is strong.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2015

Advanced Reactor Technology -- Regulatory Technology Development Plan (RTDP)

This DOE-NE Advanced Small Modular Reactor (AdvSMR) regulatory technology development plan (RTDP) will link critical DOE nuclear reactor technology development programs to important regulatory and policy-related issues likely to impact a “critical path” for establishing a viable commercial AdvSMR presence in the domestic energy market. Accordingly, the regulatory considerations that are set forth in the AdvSMR RTDP will not be limited to any one particular type or subset of advanced reactor technology(s) but rather broadly consider potential regulatory approaches and the licensing implications that accompany all DOE-sponsored research and technology development activity that deal with commercial non-light water reactors. However, it is also important to remember that certain “minimum” levels of design and safety approach knowledge concerning these technology(s) must be defined and available to an extent that supports appropriate pre-licensing regulatory analysis within the RTDP. Final resolution to advanced reactor licensing issues is most often predicated on the detailed design information and specific safety approach as documented in a facility license application and submitted for licensing review. Because the AdvSMR RTDP is focused on identifying and assessing the potential regulatory implications of DOE-sponsored reactor technology research very early in the pre-license application development phase, the information necessary to support a comprehensive regulatory analysis of a new reactor technology, and the resolution of resulting issues, will generally not be available. As such, the regulatory considerations documented in the RTDP should be considered an initial “first step” in the licensing process which will continue until a license is issued to build and operate the said nuclear facility. Because a facility license application relies heavily on the data and information generated by technology development studies, the anticipated regulatory importance of key DOE reactor research initiatives should be assessed early in the technology development process. Quality assurance requirements supportive of later licensing activities must also be attached to important research activities to ensure resulting data is usable in that context. Early regulatory analysis and licensing approach planning thus provides a significant benefit to the formulation of research plans and also enables the planning and development of a compatible AdvSMR licensing framework, should significant modification be required.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Advanced Reactor Technologies - Regulatory Technology Development Plan (RTDP)

This DOE-NE Advanced Small Modular Reactor (AdvSMR) regulatory technology development plan (RTDP) will link critical DOE nuclear reactor technology development programs to important regulatory and policy-related issues likely to impact a “critical path” for establishing a viable commercial AdvSMR presence in the domestic energy market. Accordingly, the regulatory considerations that are set forth in the AdvSMR RTDP will not be limited to any one particular type or subset of advanced reactor technology(s) but rather broadly consider potential regulatory approaches and the licensing implications that accompany all DOE-sponsored research and technology development activity that deal with commercial non-light water reactors. However, it is also important to remember that certain “minimum” levels of design and safety approach knowledge concerning these technology(s) must be defined and available to an extent that supports appropriate pre-licensing regulatory analysis within the RTDP. Final resolution to advanced reactor licensing issues is most often predicated on the detailed design information and specific safety approach as documented in a facility license application and submitted for licensing review. Because the AdvSMR RTDP is focused on identifying and assessing the potential regulatory implications of DOE-sponsored reactor technology research very early in the pre-license application development phase, the information necessary to support a comprehensive regulatory analysis of a new reactor technology, and the resolution of resulting issues, will generally not be available. As such, the regulatory considerations documented in the RTDP should be considered an initial “first step” in the licensing process which will continue until a license is issued to build and operate the said nuclear facility. Because a facility license application relies heavily on the data and information generated by technology development studies, the anticipated regulatory importance of key DOE reactor research initiatives should be assessed early in the technology development process. Quality assurance requirements supportive of later licensing activities must also be attached to important research activities to ensure resulting data is usable in that context. Early regulatory analysis and licensing approach planning thus provides a significant benefit to the formulation of research plans and also enables the planning and development of a compatible AdvSMR licensing framework, should significant modification be required.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Methodology Development for Cybersecurity Robustness and Vulnerability Assessment of University Research Reactors

In 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) formed a working group in collaboration with the Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR) group to review cyber security programs at US nuclear nonpower reactor (NPR) facilities. Following their review of cyber security at four different university NPR (i.e. university research reactor (URR)) facilities, the NRC staff made recommendations for improvements at URR including 1) augmenting the URR licensees’ understanding of the protective features provided with their physical security systems, 2) educating URR facility staff on cyber security issues, and 3) developing guidance to help the URR facilities maintain adequate cyber security going forward. This three-year project to develop and implement a cyber-security risk assessment methodology and defense-in-depth mitigation strategy for application at URR facilities provides solutions effectively addressing each of the recommendations given in the NRC review referenced above. In support of this project, cyber security documentation and guidance from the NRC, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Cyber Emergency Response Team (CERT), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were reviewed. Most of this documentation did not take the unique resources, configuration, and infrastructure associated with URR facilities into account. The NRC-TRTR effective practices document provides useful guidance for implementing cyber security protections at URR, but lacks a structured framework for systematically auditing facility digital control assets (DCA) and evaluating associated cyber threats, vulnerabilities, and risk. The outcomes from this project, therefore, seek to build on the general resources above by providing a straightforward DCA auditing and risk assessment methodology, as well as mitigation strategies, that may be implemented to address the risk of cyber-attack at URR facilities.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Development of an Alternative Approach to Demonstrating Environmental Performance in the UK - 19354

European basic safety standards require that exposure of humans to the potentially harmful effects of ionising radiation are optimised so that they are as low as reasonably achievable, taking account of economic and societal factors. In the United Kingdom the responsibility for ensuring that exposures to humans are optimised is split between two regulatory functions. The Office of Nuclear Regulation regulates exposures to workers in all scenarios and to members of the public in the event of an accident. Environmental regulators in each of the four nations comprising the United Kingdom regulate exposures to members of the public from normal operations. Since the early 1990's, all permissions granted to nuclear sites in the UK for the discharge/disposal of radioactive waste to the environment have contained conditions requiring holders to demonstrate that they minimise the generation of radioactive waste, apply appropriate abatement and discharge/dispose of it in a way that minimises impacts on members of the public and the environment. For many years, the industry standard for providing this demonstration, which was heavily influenced by regulatory expectations and feedback, was to undertake one or a series of multi-attribute decision assessments (MADA). Wood's team of environmental specialists has been involved in undertaking such MADA studies for many years. Since the mid-2000's, our team has become increasingly aware of some of the limitations of undertaking MADA to demonstrate environmental performance for large scale new nuclear build projects and, in particular, the next generation of new nuclear power stations that are being planned and implemented in the UK. We have collaborated with the vendors of reactor technologies, the prospective/owner operators of new nuclear power stations and the developers of new facilities on existing sites to develop an alternative approach to demonstrating environmental performance. Our alternative approach comprises three main pillars which are summarised as: - Evolution - benefit from progressive improvements, operational experience and recent permitting activities. Our alternative approach uses the claim, argument, evidence approach which is commonly used for nuclear safety cases and which allows us to 'tell the story' of how environmental performance has been achieved. We have successfully deployed this approach for all new nuclear power stations proposed in the UK. - Integration - ensure that optimisation is integrated into the project programme and forms part of the 'big picture'. Our alternative approach allows environmental performance to be managed better throughout the life cycle of the project and ensures that our outputs are 'living' documents and do not 'sit on the shelf'. We have successfully demonstrated how this can be applied during rationalisation of major schemes and significant design changes on nuclear new build projects. - Opportunity - identify the best time to deliver elements of the programme. Our alternative approach aims to minimise the overall time, trouble and costs associated with demonstrating environmental performance by ensuring that decisions are made at the time when they offer greatest benefit and by minimising unnecessary rework. Our advice has helped to reduce the project costs and minimise delays associated with regulatory queries and interventions. This paper describes the journey that we have taken with our clients in developing our alternative approach to demonstrating environmental performance. We explain the UK regulatory context and explore the need for change. We present a number of case studies related to new nuclear power stations and other new facilities on existing nuclear sites that demonstrate the successful application of our alternative approach. We provide examples of how we have successfully implemented the outputs of our alternative approach into project and corporate management arrangements. Finally, we examine feedback from clients, regulators and other interested parties to propose future refinements. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (CPACE) for Tax-Exempt and Public Entities (“CivicPACE”)

This report summarizes the work of the CivicPACE team to open the market for property assessed clean energy financing for the nonprofit, tax exempt sector. Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) finances property improvements that are paid back through a line item on the property owner’s tax bill. Most states restrict such improvements to renewable energy and energy efficiency, although they may include water conservation and disaster related improvements such as hurricane or earthquake preparedness. When such projects are developed for commercial properties, it is referred to as commercial PACE or CPACE. When CPACE applies to tax exempt or nonprofit organizations, we refer to it as CivicPACE. CivicPACE also represents the name of this program. The purpose of the CivicPACE project was to help nonprofit tax-exempt organizations such as affordable housing, faith-based institutions, and schools gain greater access to financing for solar energy deployment through PACE. As such, the lessons learned and best practices from the CivicPACE team work is intended for state and municipal program designers, PACE administrators, solar installers, and nonprofit organizations. CPACE is experiencing rapid growth. Cumulative CPACE financing grew from 8.2 million in 2010 to 111 million in 2014 to 588 million in 2017. Renewable energy, mostly solar, represents about a quarter of the financing; the nonprofit sector represents about 10% of total financing. The Project Team was formed in early 2015 when solar financing options were limited for nonprofits (NPOs). Traditional bank financing was difficult for nonprofit organizations to secure since they are often viewed as a credit risk. Despite the growth of CPACE, few tax-exempt organizations were using the financing mechanism at the start of 2015. Nonetheless, CPACE financing appeared to have tremendous potential for solar development for tax-exempt organizations such as schools, churches, and multifamily affordable housing, because it addresses many of the traditional nonprofit financing roadblocks, such as credit risk. Given the benefits and the rapid growth of CPACE, the opportunity to expand CPACE financing for solar development on tax-exempt buildings was timely. The Project team was comprised of The Solar Foundation (TSF), Urban Ingenuity (UI), and Clean Energy Solutions, Inc. (CESI). The Solar Foundation was the Principal Investigator and overall team lead. The Solar Foundation is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to accelerate adoption of the world’s most abundant energy source. PACE financing specialist Urban Ingenuity was the lead for the team for the pilot projects. Clean Energy Solutions (CESI) was the lead on the market analysis, financial modeling, and HUD regulatory issues for PACE financed solar development on affordable housing. The CivicPACE team focused on four key activities to help open the market for CPACE financing of solar development for nonprofit entities: research, pilot projects, technical assistance, and information dissemination.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2012

Light Water Reactor Sustainability Non-Destrustive Evaluation for Concrete Research and Development Roadmap

Materials issues are a key concern for the existing nuclear reactor fleet as material degradation can lead to increased maintenance, increased downtown, and increased risk. Extending reactor life to 60 years and beyond will likely increase susceptibility and severity of known forms of degradation. Additionally, new mechanisms of materials degradation are also possible. The purpose of the US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy’s Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program is to develop technologies and other solutions that can improve the reliability, sustain the safety, and extend the operating lifetimes of nuclear power plants beyond 60 years. The intent of this LWRS Concrete nondestructive evaluation (NDE) roadmap is to define Research & Development (R&D) actions to address gaps between available NDE concrete techniques and the technology needed to make quantitative measurements to determine the durability and performance of concrete structures on our current NPP fleet. To assist in the development of this roadmap, a workshop (See Appendix B for Workshop Agenda) was held on July 31, 2012, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Conference Center with 28 attendees: three representatives from the Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), one representative from Electricité de France, two representatives from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), six representatives from universities (University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Georgia Tech, Iowa State University, University of Illinois, and University of Houston), one representative from industry (WesDyne), one representative from a non-USA nonprofit organization (Swiss Association for Technical Inspection), and 14 representatives from DOE national laboratories (ORNL, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and Argonne National Laboratory). A multitude of concrete-based structures are typically part of a light water reactor (LWR) plant to provide foundation, support, shielding, and containment functions. Concrete has been used in the construction of nuclear power plants (NPPs) because of three primary properties—its inexpensiveness, its structural strength, and its ability to shield radiation. Examples of concrete structures important to the safety of LWR plants include the containment building, spent fuel pool, and cooling towers. This use has made its long-term performance crucial for the safe operation of commercial NPPs. With respect to the concrete structures, age-related degradation may affect engineering properties, structural resistance/capacity, failure mode, and location of failure initiation that in turn may affect the ability of a structure to withstand challenges in service. In order to ensure the safe operation of NPPs, it is essential that the effects of potential degradation of the plant structures, as well as systems and components, be assessed and managed during both the current operating license period as well as subsequent license renewal periods. In contrast to many mechanical and electrical components, replacement of many concrete structures is impractical. Therefore it is necessary that safety issues related to plant aging and continued service of the concrete structures are resolved through sound scientific and engineering understanding. Unlike most metallic materials, reinforced concrete is a nonhomogeneous material, a composite with low-density matrix, a mixture of cement, sand, aggregate and water, and a high-density reinforcement (typically 5% in NPP containment structures), made up of steel rebar or tendons. Plants have been typically built with local cement and aggregate fulfilling the design specification regarding strength, workability, and durability, but as a consequence, each plant’s concrete composition is unique and complex. In addition, NPP concrete structures are often inaccessible and contain large volumes of massively thick concrete. These structures are exposed to different environments (moisture, temperature) and a diversity of degradation mechanisms (high temperatures, radiation exposure, chemical reactions) at different plant sites, all of which adds to the complexity of determining the integrity/quality of the concrete.

Concrete↗
DOE OSTI2023

Cultural Resource Management Plan for Brookhaven National Laboratory

The Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) provides an organized guide that describes or references the facets and interrelationships of cultural resources at BNL. Management strategies included within this CRMP are designed to adequately identify the cultural resources that BNL and DOE consider significant and to acknowledge associated management actions. A principal objective of the CRMP is to reduce the need for additional regulatory documents and to serve as the basis for a formal agreement between the DOE and the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (NYSHPO). The BNL CRMP is designed to be a “living document.” Each section includes identified gaps in the management plan, with proposed goals and actions for addressing each gap. The plan will be periodically revised to incorporate new documentation. The current (2023) update incorporates new findings and/or updated text based on completed or ongoing projects related to cultural resources at BNL since inception of the last updated CRMP in 2013. Historically, Brookhaven National Laboratory had little need for cultural resource management because many of its buildings were less than 50 years old. Most of the features that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places were protected simply by avoiding the features. Compliance with cultural resource laws and regulations has included archeological surveys, such as those associated with the 1977 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Brookhaven National Laboratory and the 1978 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proton-Proton Storage Accelerator Facility (ISABELLE). In 1979, World War I trenches associated with the former Camp Upton and located near ISABELLE were determined to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places; however, many of these trenches had been destroyed by construction work. In 1991, the NYSHPO provided BNL with a letter indicating that only three structures and features were likely to be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Between 1991 and 1999, little work associated with cultural resource management was accomplished. Beginning in 1999, awareness for the need of a program to manage cultural resources grew out of the realization that over half of the buildings at BNL were either 50 years old or were reaching that age and were, therefore, subject to the requirements in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This fact, concomitant with the decontamination and decommissioning of the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor (BGRR) and the subsequent determination of BGRR’s eligibility for listing as an historical site, fueled the need for developing and implementing a more structured program for managing cultural resources at BNL.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Characterizing 5,000 Properties to Determine which Require Radiological Remediation - 19152

The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is a federal environmental clean-up program. Its mandate is the remediation and local, long-term, safe management of approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of historic low-level radioactive waste (hLLRW) in the adjacent communities of Port Hope and Port Granby in Southern Ontario, Canada. The PHAI is being undertaken by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a federal Crown corporation. It is currently one of the largest environmental remediation projects in Canada. Conducting work safely, while delivering the PHAI on time and within budget, is CNL's number one priority. The PHAI is being carried out as two projects - the Port Hope Project and the Port Granby Project. The Port Hope Project is the larger of the two and includes the cleanup of approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of hLLRW from various locations within the community. The Port Hope Project includes a unique and important component - the Property Radiological Survey. This survey involves the interior and exterior investigation of approximately 4,800 small-scale sites (SSS) - primarily residential - in the Municipality of Port Hope for the presence or absence of hLLRW. This paper provides an overview of the characterization, delineation and design for remediation of historic LLRW for the SSS, a grouping of sites within the municipality comprised of residential properties, municipal properties including municipal road allowances, private road allowances and temporary storage sites. Comprising over 4,800 parcels of land, a robust remedial process was designed to identify, characterize, delineate and remediate interior and exterior hLLRW contamination found in soils and building materials. The process adheres to the framework of the Port Hope Project Waste Nuclear Substance Licence (License) and its associated governance frameworks and regulatory requirements [1]. The overall goal is for CNL to be able to issue the owner of each parcel of land a Compliance Letter stating that the site meets the PHAI Clean-up Criteria, either after completion of characterization (if no hLLRW is identified) or after completion of remediation and verification. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

The Cementitious Barriers Partnership Experimental Programs and Software Advancing DOE’s Waste Disposal/Tank Closure Efforts – 15436

The U.S. Department of Energy Environmental Management (DOE-EM) Office of Tank Waste Management-sponsored Cementitious Barriers Partnership (CBP) is chartered with providing the technical basis for implementing cement-based waste forms and radioactive waste containment structures for long-term disposal. DOE needs in this area include the following to support progress in final treatment and disposal of legacy waste and closure of High-Level Waste (HLW) tanks in the DOE complex: long-term performance predictions, flow sheet development and flow sheet enhancements, and conceptual designs for new disposal facilities. The DOE-EM Cementitious Barriers Partnership is producing software and experimental programs resulting in new methods and data needed for end-users involved with environmental cleanup and waste disposal. Both the modeling tools and the experimental data have already benefited the DOE sites in the areas of performance assessments by increasing confidence backed up with modeling support, leaching methods, and transport properties developed for actual DOE materials. In 2014, the CBP Partnership released the CBP Software Toolbox –“Version 2.0” which provides concrete degradation models for 1) sulfate attack, 2) carbonation, and 3) chloride initiated rebar corrosion, and includes constituent leaching. These models are applicable and can be used by both DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for service life and long-term performance evaluations and predictions of nuclear and radioactive waste containment structures across the DOE complex, including future SRS Saltstone and HLW tank performance assessments and special analyses, Hanford site HLW tank closure projects and other projects in which cementitious barriers are required, the Advanced Simulation Capability for Environmental Management (ASCEM) project which requires source terms from cementitious containment structures as input to their flow simulations, regulatory reviews of DOE performance assessments, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews of commercial nuclear power plant (NPP) structures which are part of the overall US Energy Security program to extend the service life of NPPs. In addition, the CBP experimental programs have had a significant impact on the DOE complex by providing specific data unique to DOE sodium salt wastes at Hanford and SRS which are not readily available in the literature. Two recent experimental programs on cementitious phase characterization and on technetium (Tc) mobility have provided significant conclusions as follows: recent mineralogy characterization discussed in this paper illustrates that sodium salt waste form matrices are somewhat similar to but not the same as those found in blended cement matrices which to date have been used in long-term thermodynamic modeling and contaminant sequestration as a first approximation. Utilizing the CBP generated data in long-term performance predictions provides for a more defensible technical basis in performance evaluations. In addition, recent experimental studies related to technetium mobility indicate that conventional leaching protocols may not be conservative for direct disposal of Tc-containing waste forms in vadose zone environments. These results have the potential to influence the current Hanford supplemental waste treatment flow sheet and disposal conceptual design.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Scaling Equitable Finance

Driven by dramatic declines in up-front cost, the U.S. solar photovoltaics (PV) industry has taken off over the past decade, growing from 1 gigawatt of installed capacity in 2009 to 89 gigawatts in 2020—or enough capacity to power roughly 19 million homes. The industry is expected to double in size over just the next 5 years.1 Much of the growth has been driven by large, utility-scale projects that can produce 5 mega- watts or more of power—enough to power at least 1,000 homes. The cost of electricity produced by these projects has decreased by more than 70 percent since 2010. As of Q3 2020, development costs of large, util- ity-scale solar PV power plants were under $1 per watt, down by more than 70 percent from 2010.2 A robust array of investors has come forward to efficiently deliver capital to these kinds of utility-scale projects including large banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and others. But low- and moderate-income communities, including communities of color, are at risk of being left behind in the transition to clean energy. Mission- driven solar project developers and financial institu- tions have been working alongside energy justice advocates to open up solar access for these communi- ties, using strategies ranging from community solar, to solar installations on affordable multifamily housing, to distributed solar and storage programs, and more. Their goals go beyond simply generating more green energy to advancing social equity by: • empowering communities to control their energy future • stabilizing energy prices, saving money, and build- ing wealth for low-income families • creating quality jobs • improving health by reducing pollution • providing energy resilience for vulnerable communities Mission-driven actors are successfully deploying a wide variety of strategies to meet these goals, from helping low-income homeowners get solar—and some- times battery storage, to developing solar projects serv- ing affordable rental housing and community facilities, to building larger “shared solar” projects to which households from across the community can subscribe. However, the financing ecosystem does not work nearly as well for these “mission driven” solar proj- ects as it does for utility-scale projects. For home rooftop solar, even if low-income consumers have a home and suitable roof, they may fail to qualify for federal tax incentives, lack adequate credit to qualify for a loan—or the mission-driven lenders seeking to serve them may not be adequately capitalized to make long-term loans. For mission-driven commercial or community-scale projects, assembling nearly every component of the project capital stack—whether bridging early-stage costs, attracting tax credit equity investors, securing long-term debt, or coming up with sponsor equity and filling gaps—can present challenges. A variety of obstacles contribute to the scarcity of financing for low-income solar, including small project sizes, lack of developer balance sheet capacity, both real and perceived issues with credit risk, elevated technical assistance needs, and greater subsidy requirements to pursue goals such as deep energy affordability, climate resilience, or job creation. Still other obstacles are regulatory: for example, not all states allow community solar projects or Power Purchase Agreements, common strategies used for providing low-income solar—and the potential for regulations to shift over time creates risks that mission-driven projects can ill afford. This report synthesizes information garnered from 47 key informant interviews, four focus group discus- sions involving 60 stakeholders, and a review of the substantial existing literature on low-income solar finance to assess the current landscape of mission- driven solar development in the United States, examine the roles that community-based financial institutions could play, and recommend public invest- ments and policy changes that could help to scale the provision of equitable solar finance. Key recommen- dations for policymakers and funders in the renew- able energy and community development fields that emerge from this process include the following: • Help to capitalize and support community-based lenders to provide flexible, low-cost, and long- term financing to mission-driven solar projects— including providing guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement. • Provide federal support for equitable solar, including a grant-in-lieu-of-credits option for the Investment Tax Credit to improve access to this critical government subsidy. • Develop pools of government and philanthropic support that can complement financing from community-based lenders to complete the capi- tal stack for mission-driven projects, as well as to support education and technical assistance to both consumers and potential project sponsors. • Create a national Renewable Energy Credits pro- gram that includes social equity targets to provide a baseline of support for clean energy generation. • Change utility regulations to remove barriers to low-income solar projects; lower permitting costs; provide greater certainty for developers, consumers and owners; and measure progress toward equity in renewable energy policy implementation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2011

High Level Requirements for the Nuclear Energy -- Knowledge Base for Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NE-KAMS)

The US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), has been tasked with the important mission of ensuring that nuclear energy remains a compelling and viable energy source in the U.S. The motivations behind this mission include cost-effectively meeting the expected increases in the power needs of the country, reducing carbon emissions and reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. In the near term, to ensure that nuclear power remains a key element of U.S. energy strategy and portfolio, the DOE-NE will be working with the nuclear industry to support safe and efficient operations of existing nuclear power plants. In the long term, to meet the increasing energy needs of the U.S., the DOE-NE will be investing in research and development (R&D) and working in concert with the nuclear industry to build and deploy new, safer and more efficient nuclear power plants. The safe and efficient operations of existing nuclear power plants and designing, licensing and deploying new reactor designs, however, will require focused R&D programs as well as the extensive use and leveraging of advanced modeling and simulation (M&S). M&S will play a key role in ensuring safe and efficient operations of existing and new nuclear reactors. The DOE-NE has been actively developing and promoting the use of advanced M&S in reactor design and analysis through its R&D programs, e.g., the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) and Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) programs. Also, nuclear reactor vendors are already using CFD and CSM, for design, analysis, and licensing. However, these M&S tools cannot be used with confidence for nuclear reactor applications unless accompanied and supported by verification and validation (V&V) and uncertainty quantification (UQ) processes and procedures which provide quantitative measures of uncertainty for specific applications. The Nuclear Energy Knowledge base for Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NE-KAMS) is being developed at the Idaho National Laboratory in conjunction with Bettis Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Argonne National Laboratory, Utah State University and others with the objective of establishing a comprehensive and web-accessible knowledge base that will provide technical services and resources for V&V and UQ of M&S in nuclear energy sciences and engineering. The knowledge base will serve as an important resource for technical exchange and collaboration that will enable credible and reliable computational models and simulations for application to nuclear reactor design, analysis and licensing. NE-KAMS will serve as a valuable resource for the nuclear industry, academia, the national laboratories, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the public and will help ensure the safe, economical and reliable operation of existing and future nuclear reactors. From its inception, NE-KAMS will directly support nuclear energy research, development and demonstration programs within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including the CASL, NEAMS, Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS), Small Modular Reactors (SMR), and Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant (NGNP) programs. These programs all involve M&S of nuclear reactor systems, components and processes, and it is envisioned that NE-KAMS will help to coordinate and facilitate collaboration and sharing of resources and expertise for V&V and UQ across these programs.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2011

Assessing Vulnerabilities, Risks, and Consequences of Damage to Critical Infrastructure

Since the publication of 'Critical Foundations: Protecting America's Infrastructure,' there has been a keen understanding of the complexity, interdependencies, and shared responsibility required to protect the nation's most critical assets that are essential to our way of life. The original 5 sectors defined in 1997 have grown to 18 Critical Infrastructures and Key Resources (CIKR), which are discussed in the 2009 National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and its supporting sector-specific plans. The NIPP provides the structure for a national program dedicated to enhanced protection and resiliency of the nation's infrastructure. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) provides in-depth, multi-disciplinary assessments of threat, vulnerability, and consequence across all 18 sectors at scales ranging from specific facilities to infrastructures spanning multi-state regions, such as the Oil and Natural Gas (ONG) sector. Like many of the CIKR sectors, the ONG sector is comprised of production, processing, distribution, and storage of highly valuable and potentially dangerous commodities. Furthermore, there are significant interdependencies with other sectors, including transportation, communication, finance, and government. Understanding the potentially devastating consequences and collateral damage resulting from a terrorist attack or natural event is an important element of LLNL's infrastructure security programs. Our work began in the energy sector in the late 1990s and quickly expanded other critical infrastructure sectors. We have performed over 600 physical assessments with a particular emphasis on those sectors that utilize, store, or ship potentially hazardous materials and for whom cyber security is important. The success of our approach is based on building awareness of vulnerabilities and risks and working directly with industry partners to collectively advance infrastructure protection. This approach consists of three phases: The Pre-Assessment Phase brings together infrastructure owners and operators to identify critical assets and help the team create a structured information request. During this phase, we gain information about the critical assets from those who are most familiar with operations and interdependencies, making the time we spend on the ground conducting the assessment much more productive and enabling the team to make actionable recommendations. The Assessment Phase analyzes 10 areas: Threat environment, cyber architecture, cyber penetration, physical security, physical penetration, operations security, policies and procedures, interdependencies, consequence analysis, and risk characterization. Each of these individual tasks uses direct and indirect data collection, site inspections, and structured and facilitated workshops to gather data. Because of the importance of understanding the cyber threat, LLNL has built both fixed and mobile cyber penetration, wireless penetration and supporting tools that can be tailored to fit customer needs. The Post-Assessment Phase brings vulnerability and risk assessments to the customer in a format that facilitates implementation of mitigation options. Often the assessment findings and recommendations are briefed and discussed with several levels of management and, if appropriate, across jurisdictional boundaries. The end result is enhanced awareness and informed protective measures. Over the last 15 years, we have continued to refine our methodology and capture lessons learned and best practices. The resulting risk and decision framework thus takes into consideration real-world constraints, including regulatory, operational, and economic realities. In addition to 'on the ground' assessments focused on mitigating vulnerabilities, we have integrated our computational and atmospheric dispersion capability with easy-to-use geo-referenced visualization tools to support emergency planning and response operations. LLNL is home to the National Atmospheric Release Advisory Center (NARAC) and the Interagency Modeling and Atmospheric Assessment Center (IMAAC). NARAC/IMAAC has capabilities to respond to toxic industrial chemical spills, nuclear-power plant accidents, fires, chemical/biological agents, radiological/nuclear devices (RDDs, INDs), and other airborne hazards. Our web-based systems provide hazards assessments of critical infrastructure for defensive planning and can provide infrastructure operators and emergency responders with a baseline for planning and exercises. LLNL's infrastructure security web mapping services facilitate dissemination of technical information for all phases of disaster management. Examples of some of these products are shown in the Figure 1.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sensor Recommendations for Long Term Monitoring of the F-Area Seepage Basins

In mid-2018, a new paradigm for long-term monitoring was developed after of decade of applied research projects funded by the Department of Energy’s office of Environmental Management Technology Development program. The program at SRNL was focused on transitioning complex environmental waste sites from active to passive remediations strategies. A key result of these studies was that the use of enhanced attenuation approaches at radiologically contaminated sites will result in the creation of secondary source areas in the subsurface that will require monitoring for decades. Alternative monitoring approaches are being developed and tested at the Savannah River Site’s F-Area Hazardous Waste Management Facility, the new paradigm provides innovative solutions that will significantly lower costs of monitoring through the coupling of data collection, machine learning and deterministic groundwater modeling. The foundation of this approach is a well-optimized network of sensors for measuring hydrogeochemical master variables that control, and therefore act as indicators of groundwater contaminant transport. By monitoring changes in the controlling master variables over time arising from geological and environmental shifts, predictive modelling can assist with identifying new strategies for ensuring regulatory requirements are met if trends toward conditions for potential remobilization of attenuated contaminants are detected. In this report, we evaluated commercially available single parameter sensor platforms (e.g., temperature/depth) and configurable multi-parameter sensor platforms (e.g., pH, oxidation-reduction potential, temperature, depth, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity). Each was scored using an optimization function based on how well the system supports the proposed long-term monitoring paradigm, in general, and the site-specific conditions at F-Area, in particular. Several viable sensor systems were identified. Of these, a combined platform including the In-Situ Aqua TROLL 500 multi-parameter sensor platform and the In-Situ temperature/depth sensor had the highest rating and was identified as the most suitable candidate for installation and monitoring of the master variables and potentiometric surface that control groundwater contaminant plumes emanating from the F-Area Seepage Basins. The discussion of recommended potential deployment locations builds upon recommendations made by Denham et al (2019).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗