SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
DOE-STD-1189-2016 Process Standard – Stage Gates Establishment of Regulatory Requirements Clarity of Path Forward Integration of Safety and Design Reduce Project Risk by Establishing Regulatory Certainty through formal regulatory approvals. Flexibility in risk analysis and presentation methods. ANSI/ANS 15.21, DOE-STD-3009, LMP/TICAP
The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) is leading a transformative initiative to accelerate advanced reactor deployment by fundamentally reimagining how nuclear safety basis documentation is developed, reviewed, and maintained. Traditional Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) processes for DOE-authorized facilities rely on static, document-centric workflows that consume significant time and resources, exemplified by recent major licensing efforts requiring hundreds of thousands of staff hours and millions of pages of documentation review. These conventional approaches create barriers to the rapid, cost-effective deployment of advanced reactors that America's future energy needs demand. NRIC's DOE Authorization Digital Transformation Project addresses these challenges through an innovative framework that integrates artificial intelligence (AI), digital engineering, and systems-based data management into a cohesive digital ecosystem. This white paper presents NRIC's methodology for evaluating AI-enabled document generation capabilities within this broader digital infrastructure, using the Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) facility as a pilot case study. The evaluation will assess an AI tool's ability to generate a Preliminary Documented Safety Analysis (PDSA) through progressive integration stages—from standalone document processing to full digital thread connectivity—while maintaining rigorous verification, validation, and regulatory acceptance standards. By establishing dynamic, traceable connections between design data and safety documentation, NRIC's approach has the potential to reduce both document development time and regulatory review cycles by as much as 50%, while simultaneously improving accuracy, consistency, and traceability. This initiative represents a critical step toward establishing reusable digital infrastructure that reactor developers can leverage to accelerate their path from concept to commercial operation, directly supporting NRIC's mission to demonstrate and deploy advanced nuclear energy technologies.
In 2019, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) completed structurally stabilizing the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (Purex) waste storage Tunnel 2 with engineered grout. This action significantly reduced risk to Hanford workers, the surrounding community and environment by preventing future collapse of the tunnel and possible release of radioactive materials. Decades of plutonium production at the Purex facility required construction of two large underground tunnels for storage of highly contaminated plutonium processing equipment that had failed during the operation of Purex and other facilities across the Hanford Site. Following the partial collapse of Purex Tunnel 1 on May 9, 2017, DOE and CHPRC took immediate action to safely stabilize the collapsed section of the tunnel. The hole in the tunnel was filled the next day as a temporary stabilization measure, and no contamination was detected as a result of the partial collapse of the tunnel. Workers then stabilized Tunnel 1 in its entirety by filling with engineered grout, which also encapsulated the radioactive equipment and railcars within the tunnel. Grouting eliminated the risk of further collapse and stabilized the tunnel contents, all while not precluding future remedial actions or final closure decisions. While conducting an integrity analysis of Tunnel 1 by using construction drawings, photos and other historical documents, project teams also analyzed the much larger Purex Tunnel 2. The analysis found Tunnel 2 did not meet current codes for structural integrity, and it may not be able to bear the weight of the soil above the tunnel. Therefore, it was determined that Tunnel 2 was also at risk of collapse. DoE's independent panel of experts determined grouting to be the best choice for stabilizing Tunnel 2 because it provides the highest level of stability and protection, and does not preclude future remedial actions. DOE authorized CHPRC to commence work and the Purex Tunnel 2 Structural Stabilization Project was launched in December of 2017. The paper will discuss the process of recognizing the following critical aspects and risks associated with stabilizing Tunnel 2, and the actions taken by the project team to mitigate these risks, including: - Tunnel investigation and data collection to assist with future remediation; - On-site batching and mock-ups to provide the large quantity of grout required for stabilizing the tunnel; - Workforce involvement and innovative actions that mitigated the project's most significant potential hazards, including traffic control; - Project team high level of execution translated into successful project execution. Sharing lessons learned from this critical risk-reduction effort can enhance the safety and efficiency of other complex and hazardous projects across the DOE complex. (authors)
This framework is developed to progress the digital implementation of digital tools applied to the DOE authorization process, with future applications to NRC SAR development/review, to accelerate the design and review processes of advanced nuclear reactors. The engineering design and licensing process for nuclear reactors is currently burdened by a document-based approach that leads to duplications and errors due to a lack of traceability among numerous static documents. Changes to design information require labor-intensive manual tracing through these documents, creating a high potential for human error. The adoption of a digital ecosystem, utilizing a digital thread to link various aspects of project design and analysis, promises dynamic documentation generation, automatic updates, and error reduction. Model Based Definition (MBD) and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) tools are central to this digital transformation.
As advanced reactor designers approach broad deployment of new reactor technologies and the associated applications, a critical milestone on this path includes licensing or authorization of these designs in the current regulatory environment. Commercial licensing and DOE authorization both consist of numerous aspects to not only certify the designed plant will operate as intended, but also related to confirmation of the safe operation of these facilities that comply with specific standards and requirements. To that end, domestic industry and regulators require toolsets and methods which can be used to confirm that advanced reactor designs not only align with expected performance during normal operation, but also a series of transient scenarios. These codes require a satisfactory validation basis, and in the absence of such a basis, code-to-code comparisons are often utilized as a surrogate to confirm model adequacy. To support this need for fast reactor technologies, a series of analyses using SAS4A/SASSYS- 1 and the Simplified Radionuclide Transport (SRT) code have been conducted for the Advanced Burner Test Reactor (ABTR). These analyses are expected to not only provide a baseline for transient and source term analyses of ABTR, but to also provide context for the key physics that determine evolution of specific transient scenarios in a sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR). These codes are utilized for this work given their adoption in the SFR industry and by key SFR stakeholders.
The Hydrogen Education Foundation (HEF) administrated the H-Prize, a program authorized by Congress in 2007 to incentivize innovative technology development in the hydrogen and fuel cell sector. Under this authorization, DOE allocated $\$$1 million for one Prize. DOE selected HEF competitively in 2008 to administer the competition, perform fundraising activities to develop a robust prize program, and perform marketing and communications, from 2008 to 2017. HEF administered two H-Prize competitions for DOE, the first for development of hydrogen storage materials for use on board fuel cell electric vehicles, and the second for a home or community sized hydrogen fueling system. HEF marketed the competitions through industry channels, at industry meetings, a specialized website and press releases to obtain entrants to the competitions. HEF provided assistance to the DOE for development of the judging criteria, and administered the judging and the final decision processes. In parallel, HEF sought additional prize funding from industry and foundations to expand the number of potential competitions and the amount of future prizes, consistent with the Congressional authorization of H-Prize. The first prize sought the development of a hydrogen storage material that could meet DOE’s criteria for onboard storage. This competition did not achieve any entrants that met the requirements. The second prize was for a small-scale hydrogen fueling system. The $\$$1 million prize was awarded to the industry consortium SimpleFuel for their home hydrogen refueling system. HEF executed a three-pronged strategy for raising funds to expand the competitions through private (non-public) funding – corporate contributions consistent with company interests; foundation contributions consistent with their goals; and individual contributions, principally through the United Way Campaigns. For a variety of reasons, HEF did not achieve the envisioned fundraising goals, which made it difficult to achieve the excitement originally envisioned by the H-Prize Congressional authors. Originally planned as a multi-year, multi-prize competition, an expansion of H-Prize to additional competitions with potentially larger awards did not happen. Prize competitions remain a useful way to stimulate technological innovation by researchers and product developers. Creating excitement through topic selection and harmony with important and achievable energy goals that inspire both applicants and their development work, and prize funders, is key.
Safety basis documentation development and review under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) authorization have emerged as critical constraint throttling deployment of advanced nuclear reactors, with traditional processes demanding extraordinary resource investment that delays the delivery of these technologies. Traditional Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) processes rely on static documents with limited traceability [U.S. DOE]. The regulatory review and engagement processes are similarly constrained, often requiring significant effort and extensive manual verification. The scale of this challenge is exemplified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the NuScale application, which required over 250,000 staff hours and the evaluation of approximately two million pages of documentation [Bergman 2021]. The volume and complexity of information within nuclear licensing applications or authorization reviews demands innovative approaches to document generation and data management.
Software verification and validation (V&V) hold an important role in the safety analysis for nuclear facilities. Codes and models utilized in calculations that demonstrate the safety basis as part of a license application or authorization must demonstrate an acceptable pedigree with regard to key critical characteristics that are comprised of the functional and performance requirements of the software. This document describes the methodology for verification and validation of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 systems-level liquid-metal safety analysis software in support of DOE authorization of the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR). The overall goal of this V&V effort is to demonstrate the suitability of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for evaluation of safety performance and characterization of safety margins in VTR. To that end, the V&V methodology will be used to demonstrate the adequacy of the component and physical models of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for the corresponding VTR design elements. This methodology, which has been derived as a generalized approach to the U.S. NRC’s evaluation model development and assessment process (EMDAP) of Regulatory Guide 1.203, entails four high-level activities: software requirements identification, assessment base development, determination of acceptance, and gap closure. The methodology has been generalized to be suitable for both verification and validation of the software for the VTR project. Several high-level engineering analysis quality assurance measures as well as supporting V&V methodology documentation are also described in this document to help support demonstration of software acceptance. To support initial development of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 V&V basis, existing verification test problems and systems benchmarks are also identified and briefly described in this document.
The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was authorized under the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (Public Law 115–248) to provide private sector technology developers with resources and infrastructure for testing, demonstration, and performance assessment to accelerate deployment of new advanced reactor technology concepts. NRIC’s mission is to enable clean, affordable, reliable energy by supporting U.S. government investments in nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of new nuclear energy systems. It intends to provide existing facilities and other undeveloped and previously developed sites at INL to advanced reactor vendors for prototype technology testing and deployment. Some of these demonstration projects may be subject to DOE authorization, while other projects may require approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to construction and operation. NRIC and INL are considering whether to pursue one or more ESPs to help facilitate new reactor deployment at the INL Site. An ESP would allow early investment in licensing infrastructure in advance of a reactor design being ready to deploy. Through the ESPs, NRIC would help reduce the cost and time required to deploy demonstration reactors at the INL Site. This also will allow INL to bring its nuclear and siting experience to the ESP development process allowing for better and more efficient improvements and utilization of the Site. A preapproved ESP at INL will also remove the uncertainty of NRC siting approvals from the demonstration project proponents, who may not be well positioned to complete the analyses in a timely manner. The purpose of this NRIC ESP roadmap is to provide rigor and understanding needed for INL and DOE decision-makers to make data-informed decisions on pursuing NRC ESPs in support of future advanced reactor demonstrations at INL. The roadmap provides a structured method for addressing potential challenges and identifying options for resolution.
The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Idaho Falls, Idaho, was authorized under the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (Public Law 115–248) to provide private sector technology developers with resources and infrastructure for testing, demonstration, and performance assessment to accelerate deployment of new advanced reactor technology concepts. NRIC’s mission is to enable clean, affordable, reliable energy by supporting U.S. government investments in nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercialization of new nuclear energy systems. It intends to provide existing facilities and other undeveloped and previously developed sites at INL to advanced reactor vendors for prototype technology testing and deployment. Some of these demonstration projects may be subject to DOE authorization, while other projects may require approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prior to construction and operation. NRIC and INL are considering whether to pursue one or more ESPs to help facilitate new reactor deployment at the INL Site. An ESP would allow early investment in licensing infrastructure in advance of a reactor design being ready to deploy. Through the ESPs, NRIC would help reduce the cost and time required to deploy demonstration reactors at the INL Site. This also will allow INL to bring its nuclear and siting experience to the ESP development process allowing for better and more efficient improvements and utilization of the Site. A preapproved ESP at INL will also remove the uncertainty of NRC siting approvals from the demonstration project proponents, who may not be well positioned to complete the analyses in a timely manner. The purpose of this NRIC ESP roadmap is to provide rigor and understanding needed for INL and DOE decision-makers to make data-informed decisions on pursuing NRC ESPs in support of future advanced reactor demonstrations at INL. The roadmap provides a structured method for addressing potential challenges and identifying options for resolution.
Over time, the focus for the Hanford Site has moved from production to decommissioning and site remediation. Several hundred metric tons of near-surface vadose zone sediment have been excavated from the 300 Area in an effort to remove the source of the uranium contamination (DOE/RL, 2011). Despite remediation efforts, uranium continues to be problematic with concentrations greater than the maximum contaminant level (MCL, which is 30 µg/L) for drinking water. Due to the close proximity of the Columbia River, the uranium continues to be a focus of investigation and remediation. After finding that the uranium concentrations were not decreasing as quickly as expected (based on the 1996 ROD) the Tri-Parties set new milestones, including an update of the conceptual model for the 300 Area uranium plume (Williams et al., 2007). In order to more accurately complete a feasibility study and identify how to remediate the uranium in the groundwater, the DOE authorized a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). RI/FSs are designed to screen technologies to determine effectiveness, implementability, and cost (see Chapter 2b). These studies are designed to be conducted concurrently as part of the CERCLA process, so the data collected during site characterization (part of the RI) can inform the treatability studies and field tests conducted under the FS (EPA 1988). For the 300 Area, this study included laboratory, field, and modeling components as well as additional sediment and groundwater characterization to determine a suitable remediation strategy to reduce the uranium concentration in the groundwater plume within the expected time frame and cost.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the world's largest buyer and user of supercomputers, awarded IDC Research, Inc. a grant to create two macroeconomic models capable of quantifying, respectively, financial and non-financial (innovation) returns on investments in HPC resources. Following a 2013 pilot study in which we created the models and tested them on about 200 real-world HPC cases, DOE authorized us to conduct a full-out, three-year grant study to collect and measure many more examples, a process that would also subject the methodology to further testing and validation. A secondary, "stretch" goal of the full-out study was to advance the methodology from association toward (but not all the way to) causation, by eliminating the effects of some of the other factors that might be contributing, along with HPC investments, to the returns produced in the investigated projects.
Members of the INL Land Use Committee met to discuss potential options and make recommendations for siting the Pele microreactor demonstration and testing projects at INL. The Pele microreactor prototype will be a DOE authorized reactor. The evaluation team of subject matter experts (SME) was asked to consider both indoor sites and outdoor sites. A preliminary evaluation was performed by the SME team and based on those discussions the following recommendations were made: (1) Present EBR-II as the most suitable indoor site, and (2) Utilize CITRC Pads A-D as a system of outdoor demonstration and testing sites. Each pad has its own set of attributes that have been established to enable equipment testing and can provide options for various configurations when the group of pads are used as a system of testing sites. Utilizing CITRC Pads A-D as a system of sites offers flexibility in scheduling activities at CITRC to meet existing program schedules and future Pele program demonstration and testing needs with the least programmatic impact.
In 2023, various stakeholders had asked for BEA’s thoughts and recommendations to improve the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing review and approval process. This included an April 14, 2023 request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on “information and recommendations to improve the licensing review and approval process, . . . as well as the siting, licensing, construction, and oversight of advanced nuclear reactor technologies.” In response to these requests, BEA prepared and published INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process (2023 Report). The 2023 Report included 13 recommendations related to streamlining NRC hearings, expediting NRC safety and environmental reviews, otherwise improving NRC licensing, and providing financial benefits to new reactor projects. Many of these earlier recommendations were addressed through various legislative actions or changes made by the NRC. Section 2 of this report addresses the current status of those earlier recommendations. BEA recently received a new request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce seeking any suggestions for additional areas to examine or potential reforms “that may assist in modernizing the licensing and regulatory process that affects civil nuclear deployment.” Additionally, the new Secretary of Energy has identified initial DOE actions to support unleashing the golden era of American energy dominance, including “Unleash Commercial Nuclear Power in the United States” and “Streamline Permitting and Identify Undue Burdens on American Energy.” Given these developments, BEA has prepared a new set of updated recommendations in this report. The recommendations include updated versions of recommendations from the 2023 Report which have not been fully adopted, as well as entirely new recommendations. This set of recommendations has a slightly broader focus with some recommendations focused on DOE authorizations and some recommendations related to nuclear licensing beyond new reactors. Each recommendation below also identifies whether the recommendation would require legislative action or could be addressed directly by the respective agency.
Recent Licensing Experience- Advanced and Micro- Reactors Recent Designs Additional Designs Licensing Challenges for advanced reactors Functional Containment Emergency Planning Zones Autonomous and Remote Operation Transportation Manufacturing Licenses NRC License vs. DOE Authorization Siting and Environmental Impact
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Nuclear Materials Integration (OMNI) recently developed a strategy and subsequently developed a project scope for recovering valuable, indispensable radioactive isotopes from Mark-18A (Mk-18A) fuel targets currently stored at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site. The Savannah River National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and OMNI in a joint effort with the Department of Energy-Savannah River Office and the Department of Energy-Office of Science developed a comprehensive plan for the Mk-18A fuel target recovery effort. The cooperation between the various organizations and the direction provided by OMNI allowed this effort to remain focused on the desired final deliverable while accomplishing the early goals both on schedule and within the budget constraints provided by OMNI. To date, specific hardware for the recovery effort has been manufactured, various flowsheets outlining the processing of the materials have been developed, and cooperation between the various organizations is remaining streamlined. The recovery and processing of these targets will provide valuable, unique isotopes for use by various organizations both within the DOE and outside of the DOE. (authors)
The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (Board) has been interested for many years in the Department of Energy (DOE) activities related to transporting spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). The Board has conducted several public meetings and issued associated reports on this topic. In September 2019, the Board issued a report entitled Preparing for Nuclear Waste Transportation-Technical Issues that Need to Be Addressed in Preparing for a Nationwide Effort to Transport Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste [1] that focuses on the issues DOE will need to address to plan and implement an integrated transportation program. In its report, the Board describes 30 broad technical issues that DOE needs to address and offers three sets of findings and recommendations to DOE. (authors)
Location: INL Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC); Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR) Facility Purpose: Provides infrastructure to support DOE authorized experiments requiring a Hazards Category 2 facility with an elevated security posture