Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Documented Safety Analysis”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1972

Manned space flight nuclear system safety. Volume 3: Reactor system preliminary nuclear safety analysis. Part 3: Nuclear Safety Analysis Document (NSAD)

Nuclear safety analysis as applied to a space base mission is presented. The nuclear safety analysis document summarizes the mission and the credible accidents/events which may lead to nuclear hazards to the general public. The radiological effects and associated consequences of the hazards are discussed in detail. The probability of occurrence is combined with the potential number of individuals exposed to or above guideline values to provide a measure of accident and total mission risk. The overall mission risk has been determined to be low with the potential exposure to or above 25 rem limited to less than 4 individuals per every 1000 missions performed. No radiological risk to the general public occurs during the prelaunch phase at KSC. The most significant risks occur from prolonged exposure to reactor debris following land impact generally associated with the disposal phase of the mission where fission product inventories can be high.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of AI-Enabled Digital Documented Safety Analysis: A Case Study

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.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of AI-enabled Digital Documented Safety Analysis

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.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Proposed Alternate Methodology for Preparation of a Documented Safety Analysis for the Transformational Challenge Reactor

10 CFR Part 830, Subpart B, Appendix A, Table 2 lists acceptable methodologies for development of a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for various types of nuclear facilities. The acceptable methodology listed for a DOE reactor is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.70, Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, or successor document. This document was developed for large commercial light-water power reactors. The difference between the Transformational Challenge Reactor (TCR) and commercial reactors in power output, radiological source term, fuel type and composition, and operational life span makes application of the Regulatory Guide to the TCR overly burdensome relative to the value added.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Dose Consequence and Probabilistic Risk Assessment Integration into Digital Documented Safety Analysis

This is an intern poster presentation. The current reactor authorization process is complex and error prone. The development of a digital Documented Safety Analysis has been proposed to provide an automated and integrated solution to enhance the design and authorization process. The digital DSA will consist of interlinked models, analyses, and reports, all of which will be updated using automated workflows when design changes are made. This poster examines the integration of the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) with the transient and dose consequence analyses. A PRA for a generic high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) has been constructed which will drive the input parameters for a transient analysis model currently being constructed. Dose consequence will be determined using the results of the transient analysis and the Radiation Safety Analysis Computer (RSAC) code. Dose consequence data will then be input back into the PRA to drive design parameters.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Maximum Cs-137 Curie Loading onto Crystalline Silicotitanate for the Documented Safety Analysis of the Tank Side Cesium Removal Platform

The Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) system is currently being constructed to process Hanford tank waste supernates for vitrification. TSCR incorporates a filtration system and cesium (Cs) removal system using columns filled with crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchanger, produced by Honeywell UOP, LLC. The documented safety analysis (DSA) developed for TSCR limits a single column curie loading to 141,600 Ci; given a 137 Cs isotopic mass fraction of 20% and the planned CST bed size of a TSCR column, this equates to 0.10 mmole Cs per g CST. Factors that influence 137Cs loading onto the CST include, but are not limited to, CST production lot (different production lots behave differently), contact temperature, contact duration, 137Cs mass fraction, and competitors in the tank waste feed. Seventeen tank waste feeds (compositions) were identified by Washington River Protection Solutions to be processed through TSCR. These feed compositions were used to develop a simulant (referred to herein as Stage 1) that would provide an upper bound to the Cs loading onto CST based on maximizing the Cs/Na activity coefficient ratios in solution while maintaining Na at no less than 5.0 M. Building upon this Stage 1 simulant, a series of four additional simulants were developed based on the cationic/anionic species that impact Cs exchange, with each successive formulation relaxing one or more matrix component concentration constraints as show in Table S.1

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Proposal to use the DOE-STD-3009-2014 Methodology to Prepare the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for Research Reactor Nuclear Facilities

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) personnel operate a low power research reactor (the Annular Core Research Reactor, or ACRR), and a zero-power critical experiment assembly referred to as CX. In accordance with 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, Appendix A, the acceptable methodology for developing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for DOE nuclear reactors is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Regulatory Guide 1.70 (RG 1.70). RG 1.70 does not address certain areas required by 10 CFR 830 and expected by DOE (e.g., full facility hazard analysis).Thus, the current DSAs for SNL’s reactor nuclear facilities are based on RG 1.70, but also of necessity supplemented by DOE-STD-3009-94 methods. SNL personnel, in consultation with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Sandia Field Office (SFO), have concluded that an alternate methodology is preferred to RG 1.70. The details of the proposal, and the reasons motivating its development, are discussed in the order described below. The proposed alternate methodology will be applicable to the ACRR and the CX (i.e., it will be applicable to nuclear facilities in which a reactor and/or a critical assembly will be operated).

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Framework for a Digital Documented Safety Analysis

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.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

ECAR-7300 Rev 1 Verification and Validation of MCNP6.2 for MARVEL Neutronic Analysis

This report documents the verification and validation (V&V) efforts of the Monte Carlo N-Particle transport code (MCNP) version 6.2 on the Sawtooth supercomputer for the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation (MARVEL) microreactor required for the preliminary documented safety analysis. This document records V&V for a safety, hazards, analysis, and design software used for design and analysis of safety class structures, system and components (SSC)s.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗
DOE OSTI2021

TCR Postulated Accident and MHA Dose Assessment

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is engaged in regulatory activities to gain US Department of Energy (DOE) approval to build and operate a small high-temperature gas reactor, the Transformational Challenge Reactor (TCR). ORNL uses advanced manufacturing techniques to produce select reactor components. The TCR is unique in its mission: the reactor’s at-power operating lifetime will be less than one effective full-power day to limit the radiological source term to very low values, thus facilitating approval to operate. The primary regulatory documents governing construction and operation of the facility are NUREG-1537, “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors” and DOE-STD-3009, “Preparation of Nonreactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis.” Although this document is not a safety basis document, it provides a conservative indication of the magnitude of onsite and offsite radiological doses for specific scenarios, thus informing future design and regulatory activities. As required by NUREG-1537, scenarios included in this analysis are (1) a worstcase depressurized loss-of-forced-circulation accident, and (2) a maximum hypothetical accident. Details on the analysis of dose consequences with various system configurations are also provided.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Risk-Informed Performance-Based Methodology to Manage Fire Protection Systems in Nuclear Facilities

Fire protection systems (FPSs) and features are installed in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hazard Category 1, 2, or 3 nuclear facilities to protect property (maximum possible fire loss thresholds), life, and nuclear safety (i.e., structures, systems, and components). These FPSs and features are designed and maintained in accordance with the prescriptive guidance provided in applicable building codes and National Fire Protection Association codes and standards. Management, operations, and maintenance activities of FPSs involve significant effort. A DOE facility’s documented safety analysis or other safety basis document could also rely on FPSs to provide either a safety significant or safety class function to mitigate fire hazards and minimize radiological consequences. In some cases, the designation of safety significant or safety class may be determined to provide a layer of defense-in-depth to minimize nuclear safety risks independent of the fire risk. DOE standards allow the use of performance-based design alternatives developed by the fire industry but do not consider the defense-in-depth layers of protection provided in DOE facilities to prevent or mitigate the risks associated with unintended release of radioactive materials into the environment. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory developed a decision-making methodology tailored for DOE non-reactor nuclear facilities to manage FPSs and features by integrating nuclear safety risk insights into a performance-based analysis. This risk-informed, performance-based (RIPB) methodology can be used to provide the technical basis for classifying an FPS as safety class and safety significant, tailoring administrative controls (e.g., technical safety requirements), and ranking the importance of FPSs to prioritize maintenance, upgrades, and replacement activities. The RIPB methodology is a graded approach to inform DOE facility owners and Fire Protection Program managers of the most risk-significant FPSs and equipment, and those systems would be cost-beneficial to relax rigor if there is a need to re-design the FPS coverage or deviate from DOE and National Fire Protection Association standards for those systems that would be less significant. This paper describes the framework used to develop the RIPB methodology and the outcome of implementing this methodology in a use-case nuclear facility. This paper also discusses the impact to DOE policies and standards and the safety margins and defense-in-depth measures credited in nuclear safety assessments in a facility’s documented safety analysis and the benefits of implementing an RIPB methodology in lieu of a prescriptive method to comply with fire protection requirements.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Approaches for Successful Implementation of DOE-STD-3009-2014 - 18585

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a new version of the standard for the Preparation of Non-reactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, DOE-STD-3009-2014. Although this revised standard only specifically applies to new facilities, major modifications to existing facilities, and existing facilities with mitigated offsite consequences greater than 25 rem, other existing DOE nuclear facilities are beginning to implement the new requirements in this revised standard as well. The most obvious change is the consolidation of the eleven Safety Management Program (SMP) chapters into a single chapter. However, development of a compliant safety analysis is more than an effort in shuffling these sections. Examples of the substantive changes include: a more rigorous approach to defense-in-depth; a more comprehensive process for functionally classifying safety-supporting structures, systems and components; explicit direction for evaluating chemical hazards; and additional quantitative analysis for co-located workers. For any facility, the publication of an approved Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and associated Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) is a significant milestone. However, implementation of the DSA/TSR is often the greater challenge. Ensuring that the implementing assumptions, analysis inputs, and operational limitations are realistic is critical to this success. This should be addressed in the safety basis strategy document. In addition, DSA implementation must occur using a logical and planned approach. The approach should address the following: - Procedure preparation, review and verification; - Operator, mechanic, technician, and support staff training; - Management assessments to evaluate SMP effectiveness; and - Independent assessments to confirm effective DSA implementation. This project approach to managing DSA/TSR development and implementation has been demonstrated as successful at multiple DOE sites. Lessons learned associated with all of these topics will be discussed in the context of the new DOE-STD-3009-2014 requirements. The discussed lessons are taken from the multiple DOE sites and facilities. The presentation describes implemented approaches for successful incorporation of these lessons. While the context for the presentation is DOE-STD-3009-2014, the need to properly manage safety basis development and implementation applies to all nuclear facilities. Thus the lessons and implementation strategies should appeal to a general audience interested in safety basis development. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Digital Safety Analysis for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)

A Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) is a Department of Energy (DOE) construct that defines the extent to which a nuclear facility can be operated safely. It includes a description of hazards, safe boundaries, and hazard controls. The authors assert that a Digital Safety Analysis (DgSA) is far superior to a legacy DSA for several reasons: • The underling database is structured such that it is possible to perform a comprehensive design review and safety analysis by iterating systematically across a hierarchy of linked objects versus a redundant and spotty review by entities of various abilities under unknown resource and schedule constraints. • The analysis of a new design can discover elements that are similar to elements in previous designs. The discovery of similarities is made possible by using the same structure for the underlying database for each new DgSA. The “prior learning” from previous designs is then applied automatically to new designs. • Outputs from the DgSA are from a single source to ensure consistency among various views of the same information. After the DgSA is released, the continued use of a single source implements a configuration management program to ensure consistency between the design basis, the design, the built system, and system procedures. • The development of the DgSA is agile in that any change in a linked object triggers an analysis of impacts on other linked objects and updates of linked objects are made accordingly. After the DgSA is released, the continued maintenance of these links and objects automates the “unreviewed safety question” process.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Alternative Liquid DSA Containers for Sludge Slurry Storage in the SRNL Shielded Cells

A pending revision of the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) defines “DSA containers'’ for liquid sludge slurries as containers not susceptible to a flashing spray release in a fire and requires that a list of DSA containers be maintained. High Level Waste (HLW) samples are typically received from the Savannah River Site (SRS) tank farm after retrieval from the storage tanks. Glass bottles are preferred for long-term storage of radioactive liquid sludge slurry samples but are not on the DSA container list. An evaluation has been conducted to identify vessel lids for the glass bottles that would vent prior to pressurization and liquid superheating in a fire event. Low melting Field's Metal eutectic alloy with a melting point of 62°C has been identified as a preferred material of construction for vessel lids for this application because the material is resistant to puncture and is expected to have good chemical compatibility and radiation stability in the shielded cells environment. A test vessel was designed to evaluate the alloy and confirm that it would melt before the water in the vessel reaches the boiling point. The tests confirmed: 1) that the reported melting point of the alloy was accurate, 2) that a top fashioned from this material will melt creating an open atmosphere in the vessel headspace prior to sample boiling under moderate and fast heating rates, and 3) that nonuniform heating of the bottle from the bottom also results in melting of the alloy prior to boiling. Based on the results, neither an engulfing fire with standing or toppled bottles or a fire producing localized heat at the vessel bottom would result in flashing spray conditions. It is recommended that glass vessels of various volumes ranging from 125 mL to 1 gallon with modified tops containing the specified Field's Metal eutectic alloy which are appropriately designed to avoid flashing spray material releases be added to the DSA container list. These vessels will be utilized in the Shielded Cells for the storage of radioactive liquid samples of sludge slurries. Use of these vessels will also be advantageous for other liquid samples containing accountable amounts of nuclear material throughout other SRNL laboratories. Similarly constructed paraffin vessel lids could also potentially be added to the approved list, though additional testing would be required.

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

Digital Safety Analysis for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)

The licensing process for any nuclear installation generally requires the review and approval of numerous documents by a regulatory body. Alternate approaches are needed where similar nuclear installations are planned to be built and operated at multiple sites around the world. Such is the case for the deployment of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) under development by multiple enterprises in multiple countries. As a use case for this paper, the authors propose an alternative to the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) required by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) for the licensing of its nuclear installations. The DSA is a DOE construct that requires the review and approval of numerous documents. It includes an in-depth description of hazards, safe boundaries, and hazard controls.

Microreactors↗
DOE OSTI2018

LANL Meteorological Program Improvements to Continue Meeting Annual 90 Percent Data Recovery Requirements

Recently, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Environmental Protection and Compliance (EPC) and Safety Basis (SB) Divisions have collaborated on the latter’s use of the meteorological data as input into dispersion analysis used to determine receptor dose consequences as a result of an accidental release of radioactive material from a LANL nuclear facility. The dose consequence calculations are part of the Department of Energy (DOE) approved Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), which describes the processes, hazards, and controls of nuclear operations within certain facilities at LANL. The DOE approved DSA is required according to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 830 (10CFR830), “Nuclear Safety Management” and is developed in accordance with the 10CFR830, Subpart B “Safety Basis” safe harbor methodology identified as DOE Standard 3009-94, or successor document (DOE STD 3009-94).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗