Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “SAFETY STANDARDS”

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
DOE OSTI2023

Offshore Wind Workforce Safety Standards and Training Resource

The standardization of safety training requirements for people working at sea to build and operate offshore wind energy projects, adoption of those standards, and alignment with offshore safety training curriculum development was identified as a high-priority workforce gap in the U.S. Offshore Wind Workforce Assessment (Stefek, 2022). Safety is a top priority for the offshore wind industry; however, there has been uncertainty surrounding what unique safety standards and training will be needed and how various offshore wind safety stakeholders will be involved. The scope of safety training for this resource includes workers who build and operate offshore wind energy projects at sea and defines the stakeholders in the complex ecosystem. This fact sheet aims to help reduce these uncertainties by: 1) Delineating jurisdictional lines, while clarifying roles and responsibilities amongst stakeholders; 2) Identifying key actions or partnerships that can encourage further success with safety training and workforce development.

offshore wind↗
DOE OSTI2023

Conduct of Operations and Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards

Since the beginning of the nuclear age in 1943, there have been 22 criticality accidents in process facilities worldwide in which fissionable materials were processed by hand for various purposes. Of these 22 process criticality accidents, 16 involved faulty or flawed conduct of operations. Most of these process accidents (17 of 22) occurred before 1970, mostly due to the implementation of formal conduct of operations—such as the use of operating procedures and training—and the use of consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS). Obviously, the nuclear facilities applied lessons learned from their accident history, and the rate of criticality accidents was significantly reduced as a result. Over the years, it has been emphasized in NCS training courses and other venues in the United States that the consensus standards, such as ASA N6.1-1964, were the key contributors to this reduction in accidents. The formality of operations required to implement and apply the standards at a facility is also a crucial prerequisite that must be sufficiently robust to ensure NCS. This prerequisite is crucial to success fully implement the NCS consensus and other safety standards at a site.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluation of Safety Standards for Fuel System and Fuel Container Integrity of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in place that specify requirements for integrity of the fuel system and fuel container on compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel vehicles. These are FMVSS Nos. 303, “Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles,” and FMVSS No. 304, “CNG fuel container integrity.” At this time, no FMVSS are defined for the fuel system and fuel container integrity of propane and liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles or fuel system integrity requirements for heavy-duty CNG vehicles on the road. However, there are voluntary industry design standards and best practices, as well as regulations defined in other countries. FMVSS No. 303 specifies requirements for the integrity of the CNG fuel system of light-duty vehicles and school buses, and FMVSS No. 304 specifies requirements for fuel container integrity on all CNG vehicles. FMVSS No. 304 applies to containers used for vehicle propulsion, whereas containers used to transport CNG and transportation of CNG containers are regulated by the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304 are performance-based standards to consistently test and validate equipment and are not design restrictive. Despite the increasing number of natural gas and propane medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on the road, there are no FMVSS fuel system integrity requirements beyond light-duty and school buses for CNG vehicles and no FMVSS fuel system integrity requirements for propane vehicles. NHTSA is researching fuel system safety for medium- and heavy-duty natural gas and propane vehicles to update FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304. NHTSA is also researching current best practices and standards for high pressure fuel tanks in motor vehicles as they may apply to FMVSS No. 304.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Formality of Operations and Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards [Slides]

This presentation is on the formality of operations and nuclear criticality safety standards. This lecture starts with an Introduction then leads into a conversation on the dependencies of formality of operations. Secondly the presentation includes a review of past issues. Included is a Discussion about “credible” and “unlikely” – variables for process analysis in ANS-8.1, Section 4.1.2, and the double contingency principle, Section 4.2.2, respectively. The presentation finishes with some conclusions.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of ISO and ANSI/ANS Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards

This paper provides a high-level comparison between the international and domestic Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) standards, as requested by members of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division. Currently, there are 18 enacted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American National Standards (ANS) and 1 ANSI/ANS standard in progress. There are 11 NCS standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 (TC85) on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 (SC5) on Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Working Group 8 (WG8). There are NCS standard revisions in progress for both standards organizations.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of ISO and ANSI/ANS Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards [Slides]

This paper provides a high-level comparison between the international and domestic nuclear criticality safety (NCS) standards, as requested by members of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division. Currently, there are 18 enacted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American National Standards (ANS) standards, and 1 ANSI/ANS standard, in progress. There are 11 NCS standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 (TC85) on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 (SC5) on Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Working Group 8 (WG8). NCS standard revisions are in progress for both standards organizations. The key differences between the ISO TC85/SC5/WG8 and ANSI/ANS-8 consensus NCS standards are summarized. The hard work done by the ANS-8 and WG8 volunteers allows for applicable, high-quality consensus standards for use by the NCS community. This paper defines the current status of each ANSI/ANS and ISO standard, the work in in progress, the revisions/amendments in progress, and WG8/ANS-8 non-standard business in progress. A forthcoming paper will compare the development process for ISO and ANSI/ANS standards.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Offshore Wind Electrical Safety Standards Harmonization (Workshop Proceedings)

Offshore wind (OSW) development activity is accelerating in the United States, with over 10 gigawatts (GW) of capacity likely to be installed on the Atlantic coast before 2030. In addition, states have committed to procure over 29 GW of offshore wind. Experienced European offshore wind energy developers are beginning to make large investments into offshore wind projects in American waters, and some U.S. developers have submitted key design documents for regulatory review. European offshore wind developers possess extensive experience in other geographic markets, which greatly increases confidence that the U.S. offshore wind industry will be successful. Nonetheless, existing U.S. electrical standards and European electrical standards are significantly different. If not addressed, these differences could potentially impact worker safety.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Process Safety Standards and Regulations

The list of standards, best practice, and regulations below are intended to give insight into what resources are available for developing a chemical control regime as well as information on what regulations other countries have used to implement such a regime. This list is not intended to be all inclusive and other regulations and standards related to controlling hazardous chemicals exist and should be consulted.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

ANS-8 Nuclear Criticality Safety Consensus Standards - Current Initiatives

The nuclear criticality safety (NCS) consensus standards are developed as using rigorous procedures of the Standards Board of the American Nuclear Society. These procedures have been accredited by the American National Standards Institute, Inc., as meeting the criteria for American National Standards. The Nuclear Criticality Safety Consensus Committee (NCSCC) that approved all 18 NCS consensus standards is balanced to ensure that competent, concerned, and varied interests have had an opportunity to participate. The ANS-8 subcommittee (ANS-8) consists of 17 NCS experts with many years of experience as end users of ANS standards who serve on standard working groups to develop and maintain standards. ANS-8 ensures that the technical content of the standards is adequate for NCS community use. Attempts are made to ensure that ANS-8 consists of NCS professionals with a diverse range of experience such that all standards are applicable to as many sites as possible. ANS-8 is a very active subcommittee, and some active projects in progress are discussed in this paper: basis statement development for all standards, development of a glossary for consistency of definitions across all ANS-8 standards, and Considering the Criticality Safety Support Group (CSSG) Recommendation 2016-04 to the ANS Standards Board for changes in several ANS-8 standards.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Verification of Subcritical Limits in ANSI/ANS-8.1-2014

The first edition of the current American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Nuclear Society (ANS) standard ANSI/ANS-8.1-2014, “Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors,” was published in 1964 as ASA N6.1-1964, “Safety Standard for Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors.” In 1969, that standard was revised as ANSI N16.1-1969, “Nuclear Criticality Safety in Operations with Fissionable Materials Outside Reactors.” ANSI N16.1-1969 includes a variety of subcritical limits (SCLs) for uniform aqueous solutions and metals containing fissile nuclides of 233 U, 235 U, and 239 Pu. Furthermore, SCLs are also included for uranium-water lattices. In the 1983 version of ANSI/ANS-8.1 (a revision of ANSI N16.1-1975), the suite of SCLs in the standard was expanded to include 235 U enrichment limits for homogeneous uranium-water mixtures and dry/damp oxides, uniform aqueous solutions of low-enriched uranium, and uniform aqueous mixtures of Pu(NO 3 ) 4 containing 240Pu in addition to the SCLs included in ANSI N16.1-1969. The SCLs have changed little in subsequent revisions (ANSI/ANS-8.1-1998 and ANSI/ANS-8.1-2014). The ANSI/ANS-8.1-2014 standard is currently being revised to include new SCLs (uranium metal and compounds with enrichments up to 20 wt% 235 U) and possible updates to the current SCLs already in the standard, although these new/updated SCLs will not be available to the nuclear criticality safety (NCS) community for a number of years. The original bases for these SCLs were documented in papers in journals such as Nuclear Science and Engineering and in ANS meeting transactions; however, these bases are ambiguous enough that sites and regulators in the United States have not widely endorsed them for safety purposes. Overall, the purpose of this paper is to present the results of a comparison study for the SCLs in the ANSI/ANS-8.1-2014 standard using modern codes (SCALE and MCNP) and cross sections (ENDF/B-VIII.0) to provide some assurance about their quality (bias and bias uncertainty) for use in NCS applications and for consideration by the ANS-8.1 Working Group as a reference for future revisions.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Random Variation of ACRR Core Report

The research presented in this paper is to be a contribution to a larger research project. The project was designed to test the safety standards of Sandia National Laboratories' ACRR. The MCNP model of the ACRR core is being used to simulate the environment. To test the safety standards, the dimensions and density of the fuel in the core were varied randomly. Each rod had its own dimension and density assigned to it randomly. Ten different cases of the ACRR core were randomly created. The different cases were studied using 640-group neutron fluxes. The fluxes were compared to see how the variations affected the system.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Molten Salt Reactor Safety Assessment - Three Approaches to A Common Objective

Safety adequacy assessment is central to nuclear power plant (NPP) licensing. Either NPP accident mitigation or prevention can result in adequate safety. Accident prevention, along with the the prevention of accident escalation, can be evaluated using either deterministic or probabilistic methods. Acceptable means to develop principal design criteria (PDCs) via probabilistic methods are provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.233 while advanced reactor design criteria are provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.232 (RG 1.232). Accident mitigation-based regulatory guidance for non-power reactors is provided in NUREG 1537. While RG 1.232 included class specific guidance for both sodium-cooled fast reactors and modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, it did not provide molten salt reactor (MSR) class specific guidance. Class specific design criteria more closely align with reactors in their class so will require less effort to employ to develop design specific PDCs. The American Nuclear Society has recently released a liquid-fueled MSR design safety standard (ANSI/ANS-20.2-2023) that provides class specific design criteria.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗