Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “blue ribbon”

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 OSTI2013

The Time Needed to Implement the Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendation on Interim Storage - 13124

The report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future [1] makes a number of important recommendations to be considered if Congress elects to redirect U.S. high-level radioactive waste disposal policy. Setting aside for the purposes of this discussion any issues related to political forces leading to stopping progress on the Yucca Mountain project and driving the creation of the Commission, an important recommendation of the Commission was to institute prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities. The Blue Ribbon Commission noted that this recommended strategy for future storage and disposal facilities and operations should be implemented regardless of what happens with Yucca Mountain. It is too easy, however, to focus on interim storage as an alternative to geologic disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission report does not go far enough in addressing the magnitude of the contentious problems associated with reopening the issues of relative authorities of the states and federal government with which Congress wrestled in crafting the Nuclear Waste Policy Act [2]. The Blue Ribbon Commission recommendation for prompt adoption of an interim storage program does not appear to be fully informed about the actions that must be taken, the relative cost of the effort, or the realistic time line that would be involved. In essence, the recommendation leaves to others the details of the systems engineering analyses needed to understand the nature and details of all the operations required to reach an operational interim storage facility without derailing forever the true end goal of geologic disposal. The material presented identifies a number of impediments that must be overcome before the country could develop a centralized federal interim storage facility. In summary, and in the order presented, they are: 1. Change the law, HJR 87, PL 107-200, designating Yucca Mountain for the development of a repository. 2. Bring new nuclear waste legislation to the floor of the Senate, overcoming existing House support for Yucca Mountain; 3. Change the longstanding focus of Congress from disposal to storage; 4. Change the funding concepts embodied in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the Nuclear Waste fund to be used to pay for interim storage; 5. Reverse the Congressional policy not to give states or tribes veto or consent authority, and to reserve to Congress the authority to override a state or tribal disapproval; 6. Promulgate interim storage facility siting regulations to reflect the new policies after such changes to policy and law; 7. Complete already underway changes to storage and transportation regulations, possibly incorporating changes to reflect changes to waste disposal law; 8. Promulgate new repository siting regulations if the interim storage facility is to support repository development; 9. Identify volunteer sites, negotiate agreements, and get Congressional approval for negotiated benefits packages; 10. Design, License and develop the interim storage facility. The time required to accomplish these ten items depends on many factors. The estimate developed assumes that certain of the items must be completed before other items are started; given past criticisms of the current program, such an assumption appears appropriate. Estimated times for completion of individual items are based on historical precedent. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2011

Geothermal Technologies Program Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations

The Geothermal Technologies Program assembled a geothermal Blue Ribbon Panel on March 22-23, 2011 in Albuquerque, New Mexico for a guided discussion on the future of geothermal energy in the United States and the role of the DOE Program. The Geothermal Blue Ribbon Panel Report captures the discussions and recommendations of the experts. An addendum is available here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/pdfs/gtp_blue_ribbon_panel_report_addendum10-2011.pdf

blue ribbon↗
DOE OSTI2012

Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future: Report to the Secretary of Energy

Preamble The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) was formed by the Secretary of Energy at the request of the President to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and recommend a new strategy. It was co-chaired by Rep. Lee H. Hamilton and Gen. Brent Scowcroft. Other Commissioners are Mr. Mark H. Ayers, the Hon. Vicky A. Bailey, Dr. Albert Carnesale, Sen. Pete Domenici, Ms. Susan Eisenhower, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Mr. Jonathan Lash, Dr. Allison M. Macfarlane, Dr. Richard A. Meserve, Dr. Ernest J. Moniz, Dr. Per Peterson, Mr. John Rowe, and Rep. Phil Sharp. The Commission and its subcommittees met more than two dozen times between March 2010 and January 2012 to hear testimony from experts and stakeholders, to visit nuclear waste management facilities in the United States and abroad, and to discuss the issues identified in its Charter. Additionally, in September and October 2011, the Commission held five public meetings, in different regions of the country, to hear feedback on its draft report. A wide variety of organizations, interest groups, and individuals provided input to the Commission at these meetings and through the submission of written materials. Copies of all of these submissions, along with records and transcripts of past meetings, are available at the BRC website (www.brc.gov). This report highlights the Commission’s findings and conclusions and presents recommendations for consideration by the Administration and Congress, as well as interested state, tribal and local governments, other stakeholders, and the public.

Nuclear waste management, Blue Ribbon Commission, ↗
DOE OSTI2013

The Environmental Protection Agency's Safety Standards for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Potential Path Forward in Response to the Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - 13388

Following the decision to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application, the Department of Energy created a Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future, tasked with recommending a national strategy to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The BRC issued its final report in January 2012, with recommendations covering transportation, storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF); potential reprocessing; and supporting institutional measures. The BRC recommendations on disposal of SNF and high-level waste (HLW) are relevant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which shares regulatory responsibility with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): EPA issues 'generally applicable' performance standards for disposal repositories, which are then implemented in licensing. For disposal, the BRC endorses developing one or more geological repositories, with siting based on an approach that is adaptive, staged and consent-based. The BRC recommends that EPA and NRC work cooperatively to issue generic disposal standards-applying equally to all sites-early in any siting process. EPA previously issued generic disposal standards that apply to all sites other than Yucca Mountain. However, the BRC concluded that the existing regulations should be revisited and revised. The BRC proposes a number of general principles to guide the development of future regulations. EPA continues to review the BRC report and to assess the implications for Agency action, including potential regulatory issues and considerations if EPA develops new or revised generic disposal standards. This review also involves preparatory activities to define potential process and public engagement approaches. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Societal-Equity-Enhancing Criteria and Facility-Host Incentives Supporting Five Key Elements in the January 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission Report - 13015

In February 2009, the Obama Administration announced it would abandon USA's only candidate SNF/HLW-disposal facility since 1987. In 2010, all related activities were stopped and the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future was established 'to recommend a new strategy for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle', which it did in January 2012, emphasizing eight key elements. However, Key Element 1, 'A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear facilities', is qualitative/indeterminate rather than quantitative/measurable. It is thus highly-susceptible to semantic permutations that could extend rather than, as intended, expedite the siting of future nuclear facilities unless it also defines: a) Whose consent is needed?; and b) What constitutes consent? The following 'generic', radiation-risk- and societal-equity-based criteria address these questions: 1. Identify areas affected by projected radiation and other health risks from: a. The proposed nuclear facility (facility stakeholders); and b. The related nuclear-materials-transportation routes (transportation stakeholders); then 2. Surround each stakeholder area with a buffer zone and use this enlarged foot print to identify: a. Stakeholder hosts; and b. Areas not hosting any stakeholder category (interested parties). 3. Define 'consent-based' as being at least 60 percent of the 'population' in the respective stakeholder category and apply this yardstick to both 'in favor' and 'against' votes. Although criteria 1 and 2 also need facility-based definitions to make Key Element 1 measurable, the described siting approach, augmented by related facility-host incentives, would expedite the schedule and reduce the cost for achieving Key Elements 4-6 and 8, politics permitting. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Siting considerations for consolidated storage of used fuel in the United States - Assessing the impact of key developments since release of the Blue Ribbon Commission Report in 2012 - 15458

This paper offers a formula for achieving success in siting a facility for the Interim Pilot Storage Facility and a Consolidated Storage Facility for Used Fuel as envisioned by the Blue Ribbon Commission Report in 2012 and by the DOE in its Strategy Recommendations issued in 2013. Particular attention is given to the potential impact of recent events (i.e., the underground fire and radioactive release incidences at WIPP in February 2014) on the proposed formula and for their potential impact on future siting efforts. Particular attention is giving to the continuation and application of the Consensus Based Approach which will now face additional challenges. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Blue Ribbon Commission, Yucca Mountain Closure, Court Actions - Future of Decommissioned Reactors, Operating Reactors and Nuclear Power - 13249

Issues related to back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle continue to be difficult for the commercial nuclear power industry and for the decision makers at the national and international level. In the US, the 1982 NWPA required DOE to develop geological repositories for SNF and HLW but in spite of extensive site characterization efforts and over ten billion dollars spent, a repository opening is nowhere in sight. There has been constant litigation against the DOE by the nuclear utilities for breach of the 'standard contract' they signed with the DOE under the NWPA. The SNF inventory continues to rise both in the US and globally and the nuclear industry has turned to dry storage facilities at reactor locations. In US, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future issued its report in January 2012 and among other items, it recommends a new, consent-based approach to siting of facilities, prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities, and prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities. In addition, the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident had a severe impact on the future growth of nuclear power. The nuclear industry is focusing on mitigation strategies for beyond design basis events and in the US, the industry is in the process of implementing the recommendations from NRC's Near Term Task Force. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2011

Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

To provide a brief overview of key arms control and nonproliferation arrangements for the layperson that may be relevant to the Commission's comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Primer would be published by the Commission and made publicly available, probably as an appendix to a larger Commission report.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Nye County Nevada Perspectives on the State of the Yucca Mountain Project - 12388

Responding to the Department of Energy decision to try to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application and the Administration actions to close down the Yucca Mountain project, Nye County undertook a number of activities to articulate its support for continuing the Yucca Mountain project. The activities included responding to inquiries from federal agencies, including investigations undertaken by the Government Accountability Office addressing other potential uses for the Yucca Mountain site, responding to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the possible use of Yucca Mountain for disposal of Greater than Class C wastes, testifying in hearings, and interacting with the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The paper summarizes Nye County's position on the Yucca Mountain repository, Nye County's perspectives on the various activities that were developed and considered by the Government Accountability Office, Nye County's concerns with the use of the Nevada National Security Site for Disposal of Greater than Class C Low-Level Radioactive Wastes, testimony of Nye County officials expressing local community support for the Yucca Mountain project, and Nye County's perspectives on recommendations provided by the Blue Ribbon Commission to move the nation's high-level radioactive waste disposal programs forward without consideration of the role Yucca Mountain could have served in those recommendations. Nye County believes that every effort should be made to, at a minimum, fund the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete the license application review. Then, if Congress does decide to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, there will be valuable information available to support new policy development. This administration contends that Congressional language associated with the FY2010 and FY2011 appropriations and authorization process is sufficient evidence of its intent to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program. The appropriation process needs to be explicit that, absent explicit language to the contrary, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act stands. It also should include language that requires the Department of Energy to preserve all necessary records until the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is amended or rescinded by specific Congressional action. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Report of the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Subcommittee of the Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee

The Fuel Cycle (FC) Subcommittee of NEAC met February 7-8, 2012 in Washington (Drs. Hoffmann and Juzaitis were unable to attend). While the meeting was originally scheduled to occur after the submission of the President’s FY 2013 budget, the submission was delayed a week; thus, we could have no discussion on balance in the NE program. The Agenda is attached as Appendix A. The main focus of the meeting was on accident tolerant fuels, an important post Fukushima issue, and on issues related to the report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) as related to the responsibility for used fuel disposal which was assigned to the FC program with the end of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. In addition we heard an update on the systems study program which is aimed at helping chose the best options for advanced reactors, and possible new study on separation and waste form relevance to used fuel disposal (these two items are only discussed in this section of the report).

Fuel Cycle, NEAC, accident tolerance, used fuel di↗
DOE OSTI2013

Preliminary Evaluation of Removing Used Nuclear Fuel From Nine Shutdown Sites

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future identified removal of stranded used nuclear fuel at shutdown sites as a priority so that these sites may be completely decommissioned and put to other beneficial uses. In this report, a preliminary evaluation of removing used nuclear fuel from nine shutdown sites was conducted. The shutdown sites included Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion. At these sites a total of 7649 used nuclear fuel assemblies and a total of 2813.2 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of used nuclear fuel are contained in 248 storage canisters. In addition, 11 canisters containing greater-than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste are stored at these sites. The evaluation was divided in four components: • characterization of the used nuclear fuel and GTCC low-level radioactive waste inventory at the shutdown sites • an evaluation of the onsite transportation conditions at the shutdown sites • an evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and experience relevant to the shipping of transportation casks containing used nuclear fuel from the shutdown sites • an evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove used nuclear fuel and GTCC low-level radioactive waste from the shutdown sites. Using these evaluations the authors developed time sequences of activities and time durations for removing the used nuclear fuel and GTCC low-level radioactive waste from a single shutdown site, from three shutdown sites located close to each other, and from all nine shutdown sites.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Geothermal Case Studies

The US Geological Survey (USGS) resource assessment (Williams et al., 2009) outlined a mean 30GWe of undiscovered hydrothermal resource in the western US. One goal of the Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) is to accelerate the development of this undiscovered resource. The Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP) Blue Ribbon Panel (GTO, 2011) recommended that DOE focus efforts on helping industry identify hidden geothermal resources to increase geothermal capacity in the near term. Increased exploration activity will produce more prospects, more discoveries, and more readily developable resources. Detailed exploration case studies akin to those found in oil and gas (e.g. Beaumont, et al, 1990) will give operators a single point of information to gather clean, unbiased information on which to build geothermal drilling prospects. To support this effort, the National Renewable Energy laboratory (NREL) has been working with the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop a template for geothermal case studies on the Geothermal Gateway on OpenEI. In fiscal year 2013, the template was developed and tested with two case studies: Raft River Geothermal Area (http://en.openei.org/wiki/Raft_River_Geothermal_Area) and Coso Geothermal Area (http://en.openei.org/wiki/Coso_Geothermal_Area). In fiscal year 2014, ten additional case studies were completed, and additional features were added to the template to allow for more data and the direct citations of data. The template allows for: Data - a variety of data can be collected for each area, including power production information, well field information, geologic information, reservoir information, and geochemistry information. Narratives ? general (e.g. area overview, history and infrastructure), technical (e.g. exploration history, well field description, R&D activities) and geologic narratives (e.g. area geology, hydrothermal system, heat source, geochemistry.) Exploration Activity Catalog - catalog of exploration activities conducted in the area (with dates and references.) NEPA Analysis ? a query of NEPA analyses conducted in the area (that have been catalogued in the OpenEI NEPA database.) In fiscal year 2015, NREL is working with universities to populate additional case studies on OpenEI. The goal is to provide a large enough dataset to start conducting analyses of exploration programs to identify correlations between successful exploration plans for areas with similar geologic occurrence models.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Package Performance Study: A Historical Perspective and Planning for a Path Forward

The topic of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) transportation often draws public attention and concerns regarding safety, and with large-scale shipping campaigns expected in the future, public interest is anticipated to substantially increase. In 1999, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) began an initiative called the Package Performance Study (PPS) that initially focused on SNF transportation cask responses to severe transportation accidents. A public participation approach was to be used to help guide the scope and parameters of the study, which was also to consider using full-scale physical testing of a SNF transportation cask, where appropriate. In 2010, the NRC decided not to go forward with physical testing as proposed. In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conducted a study on SNF and high-level radioactive waste transportation in the United States. The NAS study recommended that full-scale cask testing, as well as other accepted methodologies, continue to be used as part of the package performance evaluation. In 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) recommended conducting the PPS with a full-scale rail transportation cask for the purpose of building public trust and confidence in the safety of SNF transport. In 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) restarted a consent-based siting process, focusing on how to site federal facilities for the interim consolidated storage of SNF using a consent-based approach. Large-scale SNF transportation would be necessary for any such interim storage facility. As the planning activities begin for future large-scale shipping campaigns, the DOE is considering options for conducting a DOE-led PPS to help build public trust and confidence in the transportation of SNF. Therefore, the DOE is gathering information related to the previous NRC-led PPS efforts, as well as applicable international experience with the testing of SNF packages. This paper discusses previous NRC efforts, as well as the current status of a DOE-led PPS, which is in the early planning stages.

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

A Publicly Available Landscape Analysis Tool for Biodefense Policy

Outbreaks of infectious diseases, coupled with an increasing biological threat from non-state actors, highlight the continued need to prioritize biodefense. The Blue Ribbon Panel on Biodefense has noted that the US remains ‘underprepared’ for a catastrophic biological attack or pandemic and emphasized increased coordination is essential. Consistent with this recommendation, the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act tasked the Secretaries of Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Agriculture to “jointly develop a national biodefense strategy and associated implementation plan, which shall include a review and assessment of biodefense policies, practices, programs and initiatives.”

Omberg, Kristin M.↗
DOE OSTI2013

Opportunities and challenges for structural health monitoring of radioactive waste systems and structures

Radioactive waste systems and structures (RWSS) are safety-critical facilities in need of monitoring over prolonged periods of time. Structural health monitoring (SHM) is an emerging technology that aims at monitoring the state of a structure through the use of networks of permanently mounted sensors. SHM technologies have been developed primarily within the aerospace and civil engineering communities. This paper addresses the issue of transitioning the SHM concept to the monitoring of RWSS and evaluates the opportunities and challenges associated with this process. Guided wave SHM technologies utilizing structurally-mounted piezoelectric wafer active sensors (PWAS) have a wide range of applications based on both propagating-wave and standing-wave methodologies. Hence, opportunities exist for transitioning these SHM technologies into RWSS monitoring. However, there exist certain special operational conditions specific to RWSS such as: radiation field, caustic environments, marine environments, and chemical, mechanical and thermal stressors. In order to address the high discharge of used nuclear fuel (UNF) and the limited space in the storage pools the U.S. the Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted a 'Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste' (January 2013). This strategy endorses the key principles that underpin the Blue Ribbon Commission's on America's Nuclear Future recommendations to develop a sustainable program for deploying an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of UNF and high-level radioactive waste from civilian nuclear power generation, defense, national security, and other activities. This will require research to develop monitoring, diagnosis, and prognosis tools that can aid to establish a strong technical basis for extended storage and transportation of UNF. Monitoring of such structures is critical for assuring the safety and security of the nation's spent nuclear fuel until a national policy for closure of the nuclear fuel cycle is defined and implemented. In addition, such tools can provide invaluable and timely information for verification of the predicted mechanical performance of RWSS (e.g. concrete or steel barriers) during off-normal occurrence and accident events such as the tsunami and earthquake event that affected Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The ability to verify the conditions, health, and degradation behavior of RWSS over time by applying nondestructive testing (NDT) as well as development of nondestructive evaluation (NDE) tools for new degradation processes will become challenging. The paper discusses some of the challenges associated to verification and diagnosis for RWSS and identifies SHM technologies which are more readily available for transitioning into RWSS applications. Fundamental research objectives that should be considered for the transition of SHM technologies (e.g., radiation hardened piezoelectric materials) for RWSS applications are discussed. The paper ends with summary, conclusions, and suggestions for further work. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗