Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “criticality safety”

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 OSTI2022

Current Status of the DOE/NNSA Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Hands-On Criticality Safety Training

The U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) has conducted two-week Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) Practitioner courses since 2011 to support the training and qualification of new NCS staff. The course was developed in accordance with the American National Standard Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) standard for NCS training and qualifications (ANSI/ANS-8.26-2007). In 2013, an NCS Manager’s course was developed for process supervisors, managers, regulators, and other professionals with NCS-related responsibilities. This course was revised in 2019 for Criticality Safety Officers (CSOs) based on an NCSP Criticality Safety Support Group tasking (2018-01). This course was piloted at the Nevada Field Office and the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) in June 2021. These courses consist of the following training components: classroom education, facility training, and hands-on subcritical and critical experiments training. The two-week Practitioner course offers a week of classroom training, with practical workshops and exercises focused on teaching students how to perform an NCS evaluation. The second week of training involves hands-on critical and subcritical experiments and measurements. The first week is offered in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the DOE Nevada Field Office or the National Atomic Testing Museum. Depending on the student’s clearance level, the second week is offered at Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) (uncleared and L-cleared students) or at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (Q-cleared students). The one-week Manager’s course is offered at SNL or NCERC, depending on clearance or interest, and includes classroom and hands- on critical and subcritical experiments and measurements. This paper provides an overview and status report for the DOE/NNSA NCSP training courses in NCS and to provide information about future course offerings. This paper discusses the challenges associated with executing the training courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2-week Practitioner and 1-week manager courses are currently offered twice per year and adjustments are made based upon demand.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Current Status of the DOE/NNSA Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Hands-On Criticality Safety Training [Abstract]

The U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) has conducted two-week Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) Practitioner courses since 2011 to support the training and qualification of new NCS staff. The course was developed in accordance with the American National Standard Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) standard for NCS training and qualifications (ANSI/ANS-8.26-2007). In 2013, an NCS Manager’s course was developed for process supervisors, managers, regulators, and other professionals with NCS-related responsibilities. This course was revised in 2019 for Criticality Safety Officers (CSOs) based on an NCSP Criticality Safety Support Group tasking (2018-01). This course was piloted at the Nevada Field Office and the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) in June 2021. These courses consist of the following training components: classroom education, facility training, and hands-on subcritical and critical experiments training. The two-week Practitioner course offers a week of classroom training, with practical workshops and exercises focused on teaching students how to perform an NCS evaluation. The second week of training involves hands-on critical and subcritical experiments and measurements. The first week is offered in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the DOE Nevada Field Office or the National Atomic Testing Museum. Depending on the student’s clearance level, the second week is offered at Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) (uncleared and L-cleared students) or at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (Q-cleared students). The one-week Manager’s course is offered at SNL or NCERC, depending on clearance or interest, and includes classroom and hands-on critical and subcritical experiments and measurements. This paper provides an overview and status report for the DOE/NNSA NCSP training courses in NCS and to provide information about future course offerings. This paper will also discuss the challenges associated with executing the training courses during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2-week Practitioner and 1-week manager courses are currently offered twice per year and adjustments are made based upon demand.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Current Status of the DOE/NNSA Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Hands-on Criticality Safety Training Courses

In 2011, the US Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) developed and piloted a 2-week nuclear criticality safety (NCS) practitioner course to support training and qualification of new NCS staff. The course was developed in accordance with the American National Standard Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) standard for NCS training and qualifications (ANSI/ANS-8.26-2007). In 2013, an NCS manager’s course was developed for process supervisors, managers, regulators, and other professionals with NCS-related responsibilities. These courses consist of classroom education, facility training, and hands-on subcritical and critical experiments training. Each course is currently offered twice per year. The 2-week practitioner course offers a week of classroom training, with practical workshops and exercises focused on teaching students how to perform an NCS evaluation. The second week of training involves hands-on critical and subcritical experiments and measurements. The first week is offered in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the DOE Nevada Field Office or the National Atomic Testing Museum. Depending on the student’s clearance level, the second week is offered at Sandia National Laboratory (SNL) (uncleared and L-cleared students) or at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) (Q-cleared students). The 1-week manager’s course is offered at SNL or NCERC, depending on clearance or interest, and includes classroom and hands-on critical and subcritical experiments and measurements. This paper provides an overview and status report for the DOE/NNSA NCSP training courses in NCS and provides information about future course offerings.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Criticality Safety Evaluation Project Development for University of California Berkely Nuclear Criticality Safety Pipeline Course

The Nuclear Criticality Safety Division at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has taken a unique approach to developing criticality safety evaluation topics in support of the University of California Berkeley criticality safety pipeline course. The evaluation topics are designed to go beyond the typical evaluation examples used for many training courses including vault storage and variations on storage arrays. These types of evaluations provide in-depth analysis into the fundamentals of criticality safety and are complex but may be far off from what a new criticality safety engineer may actually be evaluating. To provide more practical examples of criticality safety evaluation topics that are better fit for the knowledge level of a criticality safety engineer in-training, variations of current and future operations and research operations performed at LLNL are used as evaluation topics. Additionally, an emphasis on research is included in all evaluation topics as it allows students to take advantage of the concepts learned in class to apply them for process improvement, engineering equipment that is favorable for criticality safety, and negotiation tactics to work with operations personnel. The process used by LLNL to develop project topics for the pipeline course is provided in this paper. The intent is to provide an alternative technique for training students and potentially younger staff members in criticality safety on developing criticality safety evaluations.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Current Status of the DOE/NNSA Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Hands-on Criticality Safety Training Courses [Slides]

The NCSP training and education program has been conducted since 2011 and has trained over 591 students. 388 students have been trained in the 2-week hands-on course for practitioners and 203 students have been trained in the 1-week manager courses. The course is continuously improved using lessons-learned from the prior year, and new course content is added as necessary. Special courses are developed and offered periodically at the discretion of the NCSP manager. The updated manager course for CSOs was successfully piloted at NCERC in June 2020 and was successfully piloted at Sandia in April 2022. Students interested in taking the courses should visit the DOE NCSP website for additional information about all course offerings and for information about course registration.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Comparative Analysis of Confidence Metrics for Nuclear Criticality Safety

Nuclear criticality safety standards provide guidance on the requirements and recommendations to establish confidence in computerized model results used to support operation with fissionable materials. By design, the guidance is not prescriptive, leaving the analysts free to determine how various sources of uncertainties are to be statistically aggregated. This report compares the analyses and key assumptions behind four notable methodologies documented in the nuclear criticality safety literature: the parametric, nonparametric, Whisper, and TSURFER methodologies. Because of the involved use of statistics entangled with heuristic recipes, the results of these methodologies are often difficult to interpret. Also, they are augmented by additional large administrative margins, eliminating the incentive to understand their differences. With the new resurgent wave of advanced nuclear systems focused on economizing operation—including advanced reactors, fuel cycles, and fuel concepts—there is a strong need to develop a clear understanding of uncertainties and their fusion methodologies to reduce uncertainties in a scientifically defensible manner. This report offers a deep dive into the various assumptions of the four noted methodologies, their adequacy, and their limitations, to provide guidance on developing confidence for the emergent nuclear systems. These systems are expected to be challenged by the scarcity of experimental data.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

In Silico Versus In Situ: The Challenging Landscape of Nuclear Criticality Safety Training

Nuclear criticality safety grew out of the ranks of experimentalists studying the physics of chain-reacting systems at critical experiment facilities. Consequently, critical experiment facilities provide the best forum for conducting training in nuclear criticality safety. As the nuclear renaissance gains traction, there is an increased demand to train personnel in nuclear criticality safety (NCS). Strides have been made in both on-line and virtual reality based NCS training. While these are perhaps a necessary component of NCS training, hands-on training at critical experiments facilities remains the most effective means of developing competency for fissionable material handlers, managers of fissionable material operations, criticality safety analysts, and experimentalists. This paper explores the challenges of developing and maintaining workforce competency in nuclear criticality safety to support safe and efficient fissionable material operations.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Elevated CO2 Could Undermine an Exploration Crew's Ability to Independently Respond to Unanticipated, Time- and Safety-Critical Anomalies

Safety and mission critical anomalies are inevitable on NASA exploration missions. Delays and interruptions in communication with Earth-experts drives the requirement that crew resolve some time- and safety-critical anomalies on their own. The HRP, HFBP, Human-System Integration Architecture (HSIA) risk refers to the possibility that, during communication blackouts and thus the absence of vast ground expertise, a small crew may not be able to independently respond to unanticipated, time-critical malfunctions or to detect safety critical procedure errors.

carbon dioxide↗
DOE OSTI2022

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

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

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2007

Software Safety Risk in Legacy Safety-Critical Computer Systems

Safety-critical computer systems must be engineered to meet system and software safety requirements. For legacy safety-critical computer systems, software safety requirements may not have been formally specified during development. When process-oriented software safety requirements are levied on a legacy system after the fact, where software development artifacts don't exist or are incomplete, the question becomes 'how can this be done?' The risks associated with only meeting certain software safety requirements in a legacy safety-critical computer system must be addressed should such systems be selected as candidates for reuse. This paper proposes a method for ascertaining formally, a software safety risk assessment, that provides measurements for software safety for legacy systems which may or may not have a suite of software engineering documentation that is now normally required. It relies upon the NASA Software Safety Standard, risk assessment methods based upon the Taxonomy-Based Questionnaire, and the application of reverse engineering CASE tools to produce original design documents for legacy systems.

Hill, Janice↗
DOE OSTI2021

Nuclear Criticality Safety [Book Chapter]

Nuclear Criticality Safety is a field of nuclear engineering that involves worker and public safety during the handling, processing, transportation, and storage activities of fissile isotopes ( 233 U, 235 U, and 239 Pu) outside of nuclear reactors. Criticality accidents release energy as a result of accidentally producing a self-sustaining fission chain reaction. If these occur during hands-on operations the results can be lethal to worker within about 4.6 m (15 ft.) of the accident. There have been 22 process criticality accidents in the world between 1953 and 1999 resulting in physical injury, on and off-site dose, or death. Nuclear Criticality Safety involves work by qualified persons to preclude criticality accidents and their consequences by ensuring activities with fissionable materials remain subcritical, i.e., safe, during all normal and credible abnormal conditions. This article presents information about those nuclear fuel cycle steps presenting Nuclear Criticality Safety concerns that must be considered to ensure worker and public safety is assured.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2008

Product Engineering Class in the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy for Building Safety-Critical Systems

When software safety requirements are imposed on legacy safety-critical systems, retrospective safety cases need to be formulated as part of recertifying the systems for further use and risks must be documented and managed to give confidence for reusing the systems. The SEJ Software Development Risk Taxonomy [4] focuses on general software development issues. It does not, however, cover all the safety risks. The Software Safety Risk Taxonomy [8] was developed which provides a construct for eliciting and categorizing software safety risks in a straightforward manner. In this paper, we present extended work on the taxonomy for safety that incorporates the additional issues inherent in the development and maintenance of safety-critical systems with software. An instrument called a Software Safety Risk Taxonomy Based Questionnaire (TBQ) is generated containing questions addressing each safety attribute in the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy. Software safety risks are surfaced using the new TBQ and then analyzed. In this paper we give the definitions for the specialized Product Engineering Class within the Software Safety Risk Taxonomy. At the end of the paper, we present the tool known as the 'Legacy Systems Risk Database Tool' that is used to collect and analyze the data required to show traceability to a particular safety standard

Hill, Janice↗
DOE OSTI2023

Internal Collaboration on Recent Nuclear Criticality Safety Assessments

Prevention of inadvertent criticality at facilities with large quantities of fissionable materials is one of the most important requirements those facilities grapple with. Given that criticality cannot be mitigated, only eliminated, a hard line must be taken on this requirement. The facilities and sites with the possibility of such an event must abide by a plethora of requirements, most stemming from the ANSI/ANS-8 series of consensus standards. One such standard, ANSI/ANS-8.19, Administrative Practices for Nuclear Criticality Safety, gives requirements and recommendations necessary for establishing a nuclear criticality safety program for a given facility or site. One of those requirements includes periodic assessments of the NCS program. To meet the assessment requirement, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) conducts periodic assessments on individual facilities and overall programmatic health aspects. The teams developed to perform these assessments include people both inside and outside the LANL NCS program. Recently, the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division and the Critical Experiments Team of the Advanced Nuclear Technology Group established a collaboration to aid in fulfilling the assessment requirement.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Status of the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project

The International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) has continued its work generating evaluations of new and historical criticality benchmark experiments since the last update to the nuclear criticality safety community at the 11th International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety (ICNC 2019) in Paris, France. Three additional versions of the ICSBEP Handbook have been published since that update, and the Technical Review Group (TRG) held two in-person (in 2019 and 2023) and three virtual (2020 and 2021) meetings to review and approve additional benchmarks. The 2019 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook included five new evaluations with 79 new configurations, the 2020 version of the ICSBEP Handbook contained five new evaluations totaling 76 new configurations, and the 2021 version of the ICSBEP handbook contained five new evaluations with a total of 57 different configurations. The ICSBEP TRG met in October and December 2021, to review benchmarks for potential inclusion in the 2022 ICSBEP Handbook, with seven evaluations receiving provisional approval pending resolution of review group comments. Final comment resolution for some of these evaluations is currently underway and handbook publication should be completed soon. The ICSBEP TRG met again in person in April 2023 to review benchmarks for the 2023 ICSBEP Handbook, provisionally approving 7 new evaluations. The ICSBEP continues to deliver high-quality, peer reviewed evaluations of experiments relevant to the nuclear criticality safety community.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

The role of AI in detecting and mitigating human errors in safety-critical industries: A review

For safety-critical industries, human error (HE) presents continual risks to system productivity, reliability and safety. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods have emerged as promising approaches to understand, categorize and mitigate the risk of HE in safety-critical industries. Furthermore, this review offers an examination of the current landscape regarding the utilization of AI/ML with regards to HE in safety-critical industries, categorizing literature into descriptive modeling, predictive modeling, prescriptive modeling, and generative modeling techniques. Additionally, the review aims to provide insights regarding themes in literature, challenges, and future research directions. Findings of the review suggest that AI/ML methods can prove useful in addressing the HE problem across safety-critical industries.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

SCALE 6.2.4 Validation: Nuclear Criticality Safety

The computational bias of criticality safety computer codes must be established through the validation of the codes to critical experiments. A large collection of suitable experiments has been vetted by the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) and made available in the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook). More than 600 cases from this handbook have been prepared and reviewed within the Verified, Archived Library of Inputs and Data (VALID), which is maintained by the Reactor and Nuclear Systems Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The performance of the KENO V.a and KENO-VI Monte Carlo codes within the SCALE 6.2.4 code system is assessed using the VALID models of benchmark experiments. A range of nuclear cross section libraries based on Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF)/B-VII.1 in both multigroup (MG) and continuous energy (CE) formats is considered. The critical experiments available to validate the KENO V.a code cover 15 broad categories of systems. These systems use a range of fissile materials, including a range of uranium enrichments, various plutonium isotopic vectors, and some mixed uranium/plutonium oxides. The physical forms of the fissile material also vary and are represented as metal, solutions, or arrays of rods or plates in a water moderator. The neutron energy spectra of the systems also vary and cover fast, intermediate, mixed, and thermal spectra. Over 550 of the total cases use the KENO V.a code for the four nuclear data libraries considered in this report.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS2007

Software Safety Risk in Legacy Safety-Critical Computer Systems

Safety Standards contain technical and process-oriented safety requirements. Technical requirements are those such as "must work" and "must not work" functions in the system. Process-Oriented requirements are software engineering and safety management process requirements. Address the system perspective and some cover just software in the system > NASA-STD-8719.13B Software Safety Standard is the current standard of interest. NASA programs/projects will have their own set of safety requirements derived from the standard. Safety Cases: a) Documented demonstration that a system complies with the specified safety requirements. b) Evidence is gathered on the integrity of the system and put forward as an argued case. [Gardener (ed.)] c) Problems occur when trying to meet safety standards, and thus make retrospective safety cases, in legacy safety-critical computer systems.

Hill, Janice L.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microreactor Assembly Transportation Cask Model Description for Criticality Safety Validation Basis Assessment

Criticality safety analyses are completed on a transportation cask used for microreactor assembly shipment to provide an example of model and analysis to industry for reproducing this type of study on their microreactor fuel shipment. The fuel assembly considered is based on a gas-cooled microreactor (GC-MR), which utilizes HALEU fuel in the form of TRISO particles and utilizes various design options considered in industry designs. Various versions of this GC-MR assembly were studied, with and without YH2 moderator, providing similar conclusions. The shipment cask design is revised based on an existing design ES-3100, developed by Y-12 for the transport of highly enriched uranium (HEU), but is enlarged to hold the GC-MR fuel assembly. Criticality safety analysis for the cask/GC-MR fuel assembly package was performed using the CSAS6 sequence of SCALE6.3.2, utilizing the ENDF/B-VII.1 based continuous energy neutron library, and the analysis strictly follows the guideline from NRC reference reports. Different scenarios, e.g. normal operation, undamaged cask with water flooded, damaged cask with optimal water moderation, have been analyzed and it could be concluded the package would always have a large margin of subcriticality even packed in an infinite array. Sensitivity and similarity analyses are also performed using the TSUNAMI sequence of SCALE6.3.2, and the similarity analysis uses all the experiments from the ICSBEP Handbook with Intermediate and Mixed Enriched Uranium (IEU) and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) systems together with additional ones that are sponsored by the DNCSH program. These similarity analyses indicate that dry cases have no similar benchmark experiments (ck values greater than 0.8), which may become problematic if more assemblies are shipped together (or a fully loaded core is shipped) and margin to criticality is reduced. However, the damaged cask models with flooded assemblies exhibited similarities to many experiments with ck values greater than 0.8.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗