Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “NUCLEAR”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Nuclear waste reduction: Exploring new pathways one step at a time

In my home country of Venezuela, nuclear energy is not a topic that attracts much attention. The government briefly oversaw some nuclear energy programs during the 1950s, but currently there are no active nuclear power facilities in the country. In fact, the Venezuelan government signed and ratified the treaty of the prohibition of nuclear weapons in 2021, which states that Venezuela has never owned, possessed or controlled nuclear weapons or programs of any kind. When I moved to the United States, however, nuclear energy became an extremely relevant topic. In the 1940s, the U.S. government established and oversaw the Manhattan Project to build atomic bombs for use in World War II. After the war, the government encouraged scientists to use this information on nuclear reactions to develop nuclear energy for peaceful civilian purposes instead.1 During these early days of nuclear research, there were no formal regulatory standards for nuclear waste management. Policies usually were self-regulated and often created based on existing policies of disposal for non-nuclear waste.2 As a result, there were instances of nuclear waste leaching into the environment and affecting local communities. So, much research has been conducted since then to characterize and store nuclear waste safely and securely.3 I first became interested in nuclear energy during my undergraduate studies when I worked on a project involving ligand synthesis to help extract actinides from nuclear waste. I then studied electrochemistry in molten salt systems for nuclear energy applications during my Ph.D. As I approached graduation, I started looking into national laboratories that have programs involving nuclear energy and waste management. At Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the focus is more on applied processes and how nuclear energy can be innovated to realize next-generation reactor design and technologies. This focus led me to apply for a Seaborg distinguished postdoctoral position at INL, for which I was chosen based on my proposal of a way to improve nuclear waste recycling. To understand my proposal, we must familiarize ourselves with the makeup of nuclear waste. After uranium dioxide is used as nuclear fuel in a reactor, the fuel matrix is then characterized by various fission products, including rare earth elements, alkali and alkaline earths, and actinides. Some of these fission products can potentially be recovered through pyroprocessing, 4 which involves the electrochemical dissolution of the used nuclear fuel in a molten chloride salt mixture at high temperatures. Though some of the fission products can be easily recovered—for example, uranium is reduced onto an inert cathode by applied potentials—numerous other fission products such as rare earth elements are difficult to recover due to their multivalent oxidation states and side reactions.5 To improve the recovery efficiency of rare earth elements specifically, I proposed investigating the fundamental interactions between rare earth elements in the molten chloride salt and their metallic form (Figure 1). The kinetic pathways and the chemical reactions of these elements, which will be elucidated through spectro-electrochemistry at high temperatures, will give insights on how the recovery efficiency can be improved. Although my research focuses on fundamental science, it will benefit the applied process by generating new scientific knowledge and closing the gap for efficient recycling of the waste: one step at a time.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2014

Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) Development Risk Communication

There are clear advantages of development of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) for a crewed mission to Mars. NTR for in-space propulsion enables more ambitious space missions by providing high thrust at high specific impulse (approximately 900 sec) that is 2 times the best theoretical performance possible for chemical rockets. Missions can be optimized for maximum payload capability to take more payload with reduced total mass to orbit; saving cost on reduction of the number of launch vehicles needed. Or missions can be optimized to minimize trip time significantly to reduce the deep space radiation exposure to the crew. NTR propulsion technology is a game changer for space exploration. However, "NUCLEAR" is a word that is feared and vilified by some groups and the hostility towards development of any nuclear systems can meet great opposition by the public as well as from national leaders and people in authority. Communication of nuclear safety will be critical to the success of the development of the NTR. Why is there a fear of nuclear? A bomb that can level a city is a scary weapon. The first and only times the Nuclear Bomb was used in a war was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2. The "Little Boy" atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and the "Fat Man" on Nagasaki 3 days later on August 9th. Within the first 4 months of bombings, 90- 166 thousand people died in Hiroshima and 60-80 thousand died in Nagasaki. It is important to note for comparison that over 500 thousand people died and 5 million made homeless due to strategic bombing (approximately 150 thousand tons) of Japanese cities and war assets with conventional non-nuclear weapons between 1942- 1945. A major bombing campaign of "firebombing" of Tokyo called "Operation Meetinghouse" on March 9 and 10 consisting of 334 B-29's dropped approximately1,700 tons of bombs around 16 square mile area and over 100 thousand people have been estimated to have died. The declaration of death is very clear for conventional weapons and then the declaration of death due to radiation becomes vague and unclear. This may have been due to people mis-understanding the dangers and effects of radiation when assessing the damage and harm to people initially, but it is also become insidious when expressing opposition to nuclear energy. A nuclear radiation accident can be scary due to the power involved and the fear of radiation release. The International Atomic Energy Agency defines a nuclear and radiation accident a "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." There have been 3 commercial nuclear reactor accidents (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima) that stand out to the public and much of the information about the result and impact to workers, environment, and public can be misleading. Often information is presented without clear correlation with radiation and other pertinent information is left out presenting a very scary situation to affect the emotions of the reader. A very boring but "critically acclaimed" movie was made in 1979 called "The China Syndrome" starring Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon. The film was released on March 16, 1979, 12 days before the 3-Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania. The basis from the movie was from a few nuclear plant incidents and in particular, the Brown's Ferry Alabama Power Plant fire. In one scene from the movie, a physicist Dr. Elliott Lowell played by Donald Hotton states that a China Syndrome event would make "an area the size of Pennsylvania" permanently uninhabitable. Real serious nuclear incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima are often sited to make people fear the consequences of using nuclear power. However, the consequences are at best poorly communicated and at worst fictitiously inflated to instigate social unrest against nuclear power. There is an article being circulated on Facebook with a title "28 Signs that the (US) West Coast is being absolutely fried with nuclear radiation from Fukushima" which focus on mis-information and fear mongering. Nuclear power and NTR are powerful resources that can open many doors for future prosperity and capability. With great power comes great responsibility. Radiation and its effects need to be better understood, quantified, and communicated. A human mission to mars has its own risks of deep space radiation and is considered a considerable risk at 400 milli-Sieverts per year in deep space and 245 milli-Sieverts per year on the surface of Mars as measured by the Mars Curiosity mission. Although these quantities of ionizing radiation are within the astronaut career limit, it exceeds the yearly average amounts of ionizing radiation. Astronaut crews have experienced these levels of radiation before, but for durations shorter than a year, and a mission to Mars could possibly be 3 years in length. There is also evidence that people can comfortably handle higher levels of ionizing radiation where the radiation occurs naturally like Ramsar, Iran when people can experience 270 milli-Sieverts per year. A risk posture that the development, test, and flight of an NTR will meet opposition from groups who oppose nuclear energy must be likely and the impact can be sever to the effort. Active risk mitigation must be taken for an NTR full-scale development project. The NTR design must take into account safety for transport and off nominal conditions. Nuclear fuel element must consider containment of fission products and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) that may meet less opposition should be considered for safety and security reasons. Even though testing was conducted on Rover/NERVA safely and successfully in the 60's with exhaust sent heavenward in to open air, modern testing of NTR must consider full containment and no release of ionizing radiation to the public and must meet the current requirement of no more than 0.1 milli-Sieverts per year to the public. 0.1 milli-Sieverts is equivalent to eating one banana or a 20 hour plane flight. Good communication with the public and regulatory agencies will be essential to show that all effort is applied toward protection to the public and astronauts. The inspiring endeavor to put humans on Mars to study the planet, search for life, and learn more about this Solar System will be full of risks but it will be worth it. NTR will be worth the development effort if it allows humans to explore our Solar System.

Kim, Tony↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Systems Thinking Approach to Nuclear Pedagogy and Workforce Development

Nuclear technology's controversial status has been shaped by its early use in military applications, fear driven by high-profile accidents, and unresolved waste management challenges. There have, on the other hand, been periodic claims that a “nuclear renaissance” is imminent, driven by different dynamics at different times, most recently related to growing energy demands and increasing concern over carbon emissions. In this article, we respond to urgent calls for more nuclear engineers, resulting from the latest rallying cry around nuclear energy, by reframing the problem using a systems thinking approach that illuminates new pathways for nuclear workforce development via interdisciplinary pedagogies. By building nuclear education into a wide variety of disciplines, we argue, the nuclear workforce could become more resilient to ebbs and flows in energy markets and public opinion. Widening nuclear education beyond nuclear engineers could also reduce the isolation and compartmentalization that has limited the possibilities of nuclear technology. We show how growing and diversifying the overall nuclear workforce could create a wide variety of career opportunities outside STEM and enable greater specialization within STEM, since nuclear engineers and other specialists could be freed up to focus on technological and infrastructural innovations. We argue that interventions into nuclear education should establish new connections and applications of the nuclear sciences in diverse areas of expertise to develop a broad range of professionals who can contribute to a more stable nuclear workforce, bringing what we call “critical and creative nuclear energy literacies” to long-standing and systemic challenges around nuclear energy.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI1992

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 4, October-December 1992]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 499 Technical Note: Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Examination Question Bank System, C. L Jensen and N. L. Skinner; 506 Report on the Specialists’ Meeting on Passive and Active Safety Features of Liquid-Metal Fast Breeder Reactors Organized by the International Atomic Energy Agency at Oarai Engineering Centre of Power Reactor and Nuclear Development Corporation, Japan, November 5-7,1991, S. R. Paranjpe; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 514 A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs, D. F. Fletcher, B. D. Turland, and S. P. A. Lawrence; 535 A Review of the U 3 0 8 -Al Reaction as a Potential Heat Source in Research and Test Reactor Accidents, J. L. Snelgrove; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 543 Multilevel Interfaces for Power Plant Control Rooms II: A Preliminary Design Space, K. J. Vicente; DESIGN FEATURES: 549 Twenty-Second DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 562 Book Review: Safety Assessment of Unit 5 (WWER-440/W-213) of the Greifswald Nuclear Power Station, M. H. Fontana; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 576 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 586 Analysis of Corrective Actions Applied to Nuclear Power Plant Operations, A. E. Cross; 593 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 596 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 609 Non-Commercial Power Operating Experience; 614 World Nuclear Performance, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 623 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 635 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 639 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 513 Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing and Waste Management RECOD '94; 585 International Topical Meeting on Advanced Reactors Safety; 622 International Workshop on Implementation of ALARA at Nuclear Power Plants; 648 Short Course on Nuclear Criticality Safety; 648 8th Topical Meeting on Problems in Reactor Physics MEPhi-VOLGA-93; 643 The Authors; 646 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 33

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Progress in Constraining Nuclear Symmetry Energy Using Neutron Star Observables Since GW170817

The density dependence of nuclear symmetry energy is among the most uncertain parts of the Equation of State (EOS) of dense neutron-rich nuclear matter. It is currently poorly known especially at suprasaturation densities partially because of our poor knowledge about isovector nuclear interactions at short distances. Because of its broad impacts on many interesting issues, pinning down the density dependence of nuclear symmetry energy has been a longstanding and shared goal of both astrophysics and nuclear physics. New observational data of neutron stars including their masses, radii, and tidal deformations since GW170817 have helped improve our knowledge about nuclear symmetry energy, especially at high densities. Based on various model analyses of these new data by many people in the nuclear astrophysics community, while our brief review might be incomplete and biased unintentionally, we learned in particular the following: (1) The slope parameter L of nuclear symmetry energy at saturation density ρ0 of nuclear matter from 24 new analyses of neutron star observables was about L≈57.7±19 MeV at a 68% confidence level, consistent with its fiducial value from surveys of over 50 earlier analyses of both terrestrial and astrophysical data within error bars. (2) The curvature Ksym of nuclear symmetry energy at ρ0 from 16 new analyses of neutron star observables was about Ksym≈−107±88 MeV at a 68% confidence level, in very good agreement with the systematics of earlier analyses. (3) The magnitude of nuclear symmetry energy at 2ρ0, i.e., Esym(2ρ0)≈51±13 MeV at a 68% confidence level, was extracted from nine new analyses of neutron star observables, consistent with the results from earlier analyses of heavy-ion reactions and the latest predictions of the state-of-the-art nuclear many-body theories. (4) While the available data from canonical neutron stars did not provide tight constraints on nuclear symmetry energy at densities above about 2ρ0, the lower radius boundary R2.01=12.2 km from NICER’s very recent observation of PSR J0740+6620 of mass 2.08±0.07M⊙ and radius R=12.2–16.3 km at a 68% confidence level set a tight lower limit for nuclear symmetry energy at densities above 2ρ0. (5) Bayesian inferences of nuclear symmetry energy using models encapsulating a first-order hadron–quark phase transition from observables of canonical neutron stars indicated that the phase transition shifted appreciably both L and Ksym to higher values, but with larger uncertainties compared to analyses assuming no such phase transition. (6) The high-density behavior of nuclear symmetry energy significantly affected the minimum frequency necessary to rotationally support GW190814’s secondary component of mass (2.50–2.67) M⊙ as the fastest and most massive pulsar discovered so far. Overall, thanks to the hard work of many people in the astrophysics and nuclear physics community, new data of neutron star observations since the discovery of GW170817 have significantly enriched our knowledge about the symmetry energy of dense neutron-rich nuclear matter.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI1995

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 36, No. 1, January-June 1995]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHORNOBYL ACCIDENT: 1 The Chornobyl Accident Revisited, Part II: The State of the Nuclear Fuel Located Within the Chornobyl Sarcophagus, A A. Borovoi and A. R. Sich; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 33 Nuclear Power Safety in Central and Eastern Europe, R. Wilson; 46 Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors in the Former Eastern European Countries, S. Chakraborty; 53 Technical Note: On the Definition of Common-Cause Failures, H. Paula; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 58 Modeling and Analysis of Core-Debris Recriticality During Hypothetical Severe Accidents in the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor, S.-H. Kim, V. Georgevich, D. B. Simpson, C. O. Slater, and R. P. Taleyarkhan; 68 Ignitability of Hydrogen/Oxygen/Diluent Mixtures in the Presence of Hot Surfaces, R. K. Kumar and G. W. Koroll; 94 Coupled RELAP5 and CONTAIN Accident Analysis Using PVM, K. A. Smith, A. J. Baratta, and G. E. Robinson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 109 Application of Fuzzy Logic in Nuclear Reactor Control Part I: An Assessment of State-of-the-Art, A. S. Heger, N. K. Alang-Rashid, and M. Jamshidi; DESIGN FEATURES: 122 Twenty-Third DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning and Treatment Conference, R. R. Bellamy, J. J. Hayes, and M. W. First; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 135 Atmospheric Dispersion and the Radiological Consequences of Normal Airborne Effluents from a Nuclear Power Plant, D. Fang, C. Z. Sun, and L. Yang; 142 Calculation of Distribution Coefficients for Radionuclides in Soils and Sediments, I. Puigdomenech and U. Bergstrom: OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 155 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 158 Operating Experience Feedback Report—Reliability of Safety-Related Steam Turbine-Driven Standby Pumps Used in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, J. R. Boardman; 166 Turbine Building Hazards, H. L Ornstein; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 169 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 175 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 32 Harvard School of Public Health In-Place Filter Testing Workshop; 134 International Conference on Advances in the Operational Safety of Nuclear Power Plants; 193 30th Tennessee Industries Week; 193 DOE Technical Standards Program 1995 Workshop; 194 Multiphase Flow Experiments and Instrumentation; 180 The Authors; 185 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volumes 34 and 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI1975

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 16, No. 2, March-April 1975]

Nuclear Safety covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. The scope is limited to topics relevant to the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, safety considerations in regard to the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 127 Quality Assurance in the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants by Sidney A. Bernsen, 141 1974 ANS Topical Meeting on Fast Reactor Safety by M. H. Fontana; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 150 GBR-4 Protection Systems: Failures and Their Consequences by Peter Burgsmüller, J. J. Dekais, Albert Krähe, Raffaello Pignatelli, and Gottfried Vieider, 162 Standby Emergency Power Systems. Part 2—The Later Plants by E. W. Hagen; PLANT SAFETY FEATURES: 180 Radiotoxic Hazard Measure for Buried Solid Radioactive Waste by J. Hamstra, 190 The Thirteenth AEC Air-Cleaning Conference by D. W. Moeller, D. W. Underhill, and M. W. First, 203 Book Review: Nuclear Criticality Safety; CONSEQUENCES OF EFFLUENT RELEASE: 204 Environmental Radiation Effects of Nuclear Facilities in New York State by M. S. Terpilak and B. L. Jorgensen, 222 Book Review: Thermal Ecology; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 223 Set-Point Drift in Nuclear Power-Plant Safety-Related Instrumentation Adapted by the Nuclear Safety Staff, 224 Diesel-Generator Operating Experience at Nuclear Power Plants, 227 Summary of Operating U. S. Power Reactors as of Jan. 1, 1975, 232 Selected Safety-Related Occurrences Reported in November and December 1974 Compiled by William R. Casto, 235 Recent Occurrences at Nuclear Reactors and Their Causes Compiled by William R. Casto; CURRENT EVENTS: 243 General Administrative Activities Compiled by Wm. B. Cottrell, 251 Action on Power-Reactor Projects Undergoing Regulatory Review or Consideration Compiled by Wm. B. Cottrell, 266 Action on Nonreactor Projects Undergoing Regulatory Review or Consideration Compiled by Wm. B Cottrell, 268 Proposed Rule Changes as of Jan. 1, 1975; MISCELLANY: 149 Course in Italy on High-Energy Radiation Dosimetry and Protection (Announcement), 250 Course at Northwestern on Safety of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants (Announcement), 266 Symposium of the Combined Effects on the Environment of Radioactive, Chemical, and Thermal Releases from the Nuclear Industry (Announcement), 271 Short Course on Engineering for Extreme Winds and Tornadoes (Announcement), 272 Three 1-Week Courses at MIT on Nuclear Power-Reactor Safety (Announcement), 272 Harvard University Short Courses (Announcement).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Global Trends of ASME "N-Stamp" Certifications for Nuclear Component Vendors

Historically, nuclear component manufacturing vendors, from small businesses through large conglomerates, have felt compelled to obtain an American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Certification, known colloquially as an "N-stamp", to assure supply chain quality standards that will be acceptable to regulators and safety concerns. Since the N-stamp quality standard is a U.S.-origin code, combined with the apparent decline in the U.S. nuclear industry alongside the growth of the Asian nuclear industry, there is the question of whether the rest of the world, including new entrants to the nuclear industry, also regard N-stamp as a needed certification. This study addresses this question through analysis of the entire N-stamp database of holders, and former holders, of N-stamp certificates of all types and for all regions worldwide from 1989-2020 (the dates available in the database). From this 30 years of data, we find that actually U.S.-based vendors still consistently obtain the largest number of N-stamps worldwide over all time periods, but also find that the countries participating in the N-stamp certification process has broadly expanded beyond just North America, Japan, S. Korea and Western Europe (the primary N-stamp recipients before the mid-2000's). We produced global heats maps and bar charts to illustrate our findings, as well as further investigation into why the data shows changes over time and region. We note that nuclear entities involved with Soviet-type reactors do not participate in the N-stamp process, but instead pursue the Russian version PNAE, which is substantially similar to the ASME code. We conclude that at least from the N-stamp database, the United States nuclear component manufacturing industry is alive and well, although there have been some consolidations, and that the ASME N-stamp appears to still be a valued certificate worldwide, including in China which now ranks second only to the United States in obtaining N-stamp certificates in recent years. We further note that the vendors of new reactor types, in particular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGRs) and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), are actively engaged with ASME (and other U.S.-based nuclear standards bodies such as the American Nuclear Society and Nuclear Energy Institute) to coordinate updates to the ASME N-Stamp criteria to ensure applicability of the code for these new designs. Implications of these findings include the following: The global use of the U.S.-origin N-stamp certification supports the view that, despite the decline of the U.S. nuclear industry, the United States remains an esteemed global leader in the area of nuclear safety. As the U.S. Government works to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry, especially in the area of exports, it may be beneficial to leverage the global standing of the N-stamp certification. The findings indicate that the N-stamp database would be a useful tool for the U.S. Government to use to track the growth of the civil nuclear industry in foreign countries, under certain circumstances. The Excel-format N-stamp database produced as part of this study may be a useful tool for this purpose. N-stamp data may be a useful tool for foreign governments to use to identify nuclear manufacturers within their own country, especially to identify "targets" for outreach on nuclear export control compliance. The U.S. Government could carry this message to foreign partners during bilateral engagements or as part of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) discussions on industry outreach.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of Upcoming MCNP Features For Estimating Nuclear Data Sensitivities in Fixed Source Simulations [Abstract]

Predictive simulation codes, like the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code, are used throughout the nuclear community. These simulations are based on nuclear data. Maximizing the accuracy and precision of nuclear data maximizes the accuracy and precision of the overall simulation. This is imperative to applications that rely on simulations. For example, improving nuclear data for special nuclear material improves simulation accuracy in stockpile stewardship applications, which results in larger safety margins and decreased operational costs. The improvement and validation of nuclear data is completed through integral benchmark experiments. Past benchmarks have primarily been limited to focus on the effective multiplication factor ($\kappa$ eff ); broadening the purview of benchmarks beyond $\kappa$ eff -dependent nuclear data addresses nuclear data deficiencies. Different response types depend on different areas of nuclear data. This dependence is quantified as nuclear data sensitivity: the change in response due to perturbation of a contributing parameter. The larger the nuclear data sensitivity of a response, the more the experiment is influenced by the uncertainties of the nuclear data. The optimization of nuclear data sensitivities in future benchmarks would result in more detailed validation of lesser studied areas of nuclear data. Currently, direct sensitivity capabilities are not easily found for all experiment types and parameters. An MCNP tool to directly estimate the cross section sensitivities of tallied values is under development. Additionally, updates have been made to the perturbation feature of MCNP, which can be used in a less direct approach to estimating sensitivities. This work verifies these features to estimate nuclear data sensitivities in fixed source simulations of a 4.5-kg sphere of alpha- phase weapons-grade plutonium surrounded by differing amounts of copper and polyethylene. Integrated estimates made using MCNP’s tools were found to statistically agree with integrated estimates made from manual perturbation of nuclear data proving the validity of the MCNP tools.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Systematic Evidence Based Performance Approach to Regulation of Nuclear Sites in England and Wales - 20058

The Environment Agency for England has developed a systematic evidence-based approach to pursue our strategic environmental objectives for the regulation of nuclear sites. We use an annual evidence review process to ensure effective and efficient targeting of limited resources to achieve those objectives. Over the last 8 years, we have been developing and refining this approach to ensure risk-based and value driven regulation. The approach comprises nuclear site and nuclear sector review processes known as Site Environment Review (SER) and Nuclear Environment Review (NER). This approach complements our regulation of nuclear site permit holders under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). We deliver our regulation of nuclear sites in England and Wales alongside the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The SER process involves the lead regulator for each nuclear site assessing the permit holder's environmental performance across 14 themes, set within the context of the site's main activities and associated waste disposals. Our themes include environmental leadership, resources and climate change, radioactive waste management, facility management and decommissioning, groundwater, and environmental radiological protection. We use evidence from site inspections and working within our subject matter groups to grade current and predicted future environmental performance. We are particularly interested in sustainability and the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent the creation, and minimise the disposal, of radioactive wastes. We use risk analysis (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) to examine performance against our strategic environmental objectives, which are set out, in our 5-year Nuclear Delivery Plan (NDP). The output supports the targeting of our resources at each nuclear site. We consult the relevant permit holders on the SER priorities and use their feedback to refine our plans. We expect all permit holders to take account of our priorities when considering their own programmes of work, objectives and plans. The NER process brings together what we learn and achieve through regulation across the sector. It provides input to planning priorities, supported by qualitative and semi-quantitative evidence. It covers the 28 nuclear sites in England and Wales and spans the same 14 environmental themes. During the process we collate, compile and summarise evidence from the SERs and other sources such as inspection reports and evidence from our other nuclear work programmes. The output is the NER annual report. This provides a snapshot of the status of the nuclear sector and gives insights to enable us to regulate more efficiently and effectively. It also takes account of cross-cutting issues and risks such as changes in international standards, domestic policy, regulatory framework, domestic standards and guidance, learning from experience such as incidents, events and good practice, and innovation, research and development. It provides graphics that illustrate the grading of environmental performance for the nuclear sector across the fourteen environmental themes. This analysis allows benchmarking of nuclear site's environmental performance and the visualisation provides a convenient comparison of performance across themes, sites, and over time. We use this intelligence to inform our investment in training and development of our staff, and our cross-cutting engagement on strategic issues with government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and other corporate organisations. Adopting this approach can provide benefits with organisational reputation, stakeholder participation and ensuring value from the public investment. This paper describes the history of the SER/NER process, a selection of outputs from the process and ideas for improvement. The paper will be of interest to other regulators and organisations across the world that are interested in supporting continuous improvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI1991

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 1, January-March 1991]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 The Safety Review and Approval Process for Space Nuclear Power Sources, G. L. Bennett; 19 Report on the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting: "The Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities", E. G. Silver; 35 Book Review: Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, Proceedings to the International Centre tor Heat and Mass Processes T. S. Kress; 38 Fast Reactor Technology in the 1990s: A Summary of the 1990 International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, A. E. Levin; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 56 Effects of Chemical Phenomena on LWR Severe Accident Fission Product Behavior, A. P. Malinauskas and T. S. Kress; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 65 Technical Note: Safety Parameter Display Systems—10 Years Later, R. J. Eckenrode; 68 Potential Application of Neural Networks to the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants, R. E. Uhrig; DESIGN FEATURES: 80 Twenty-First DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 91 Impact of an Apparent Radiation Embrittlement Rate on the Life Expectancy of PWR Vessel Supports, R. D. Cheverton, G. C. Robinson, W. E. Pennell, and R. K. Nanstad; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 103 Technical Note: The Impact of Offsite Factors on the Safety Performance of Small Nuclear Power Plants, Yu. D. Baranaev and A. N. Viktorov; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 109 Activities Related to Waste Management, Compiled by E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 118 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 121 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 123 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 140 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 150 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 155 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 157 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1990; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 79 MIT Offers Summer Program on Nuclear Power Reactor Safety; 108 Harvard School of Public Health Offers Several Short Courses; 139 Short Course and Workshop on Nuclear Criticality Safety at University of New Mexico; 160 SCK/CEN Announces Training Course on Emergency Planning and Response; 161 The Authors; 164 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 31

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Investigation of Non-Nuclear Plowshare and Vela Uniform Sites - 20447

The Plowshare Program was initiated by the Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency to the US Department of Energy (DOE), to investigate peaceful uses of nuclear devices. 'Vela Uniform,' part of the broader Project Vela, was designed to use nuclear and other explosions to increase the capability of the United States to detect nuclear tests through seismicity. There were underground nuclear tests conducted off the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) as part of the Plowshare Program (e.g., the Gnome-Coach, New Mexico, Site) and the Vela Uniform Program (e.g., Project Shoal, Nevada, Site) at which the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) has been conducting long-term surveillance and maintenance since fiscal year (FY) 2006. There are many additional locations, particularly for the Plowshare Program, that were considered for nuclear tests or used for non-nuclear tests off the NNSS. Some were only named on paper, but at 30 sites, field work such as drilling test wells and conducting tests using conventional explosives was done. A Plowshare nuclear explosion had been proposed at Project Chariot but was canceled in 1962. In 1992, the discovery of soils contaminated with radionuclides from tracer experiments led to a cleanup by the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) of the Project Chariot, Alaska, Site, which was completed in 1994. Following the cleanup of the Project Chariot site, EM was concerned that there might be environmental liabilities at other Plowshare or Vela Uniform sites where field investigations were done, even if the nuclear test was never conducted. The EM Program at the Nevada Site Office began examining records and visiting selected locations that were evaluated for Plowshare and Vela Uniform non-nuclear tests. In total, 161 Plowshare and 14 Vela Uniform sites or proposed projects were identified. The Desert Research Institute (DRI) created summaries of the work carried out at these sites and developed a collection of unclassified documents for them. Preliminary investigations had been conducted at these sites by both LM and EM since the early 2000's. In 2016, in preparation for accepting responsibility for the sites, LM started a program to determine if there were any environmental or safety liabilities associated with them. In 2019, LM formally accepted responsibility for these sites off the NNSS where non-nuclear explosive tests were conducted or where underground nuclear tests were proposed as part of the Plowshare and Vela Uniform programs but were never conducted. LM responsibilities will include maintaining institutional knowledge of the sites, responding to public inquiries, and addressing any concerns at each site. To minimize risk associated with site management, LM has archived all historical records compiled by DRI and has performed limited investigations at sites identified by the prior studies as having a higher potential liability. Preserving records related to site operations reduces the risk of doing unnecessary site investigations in the future caused by the loss of institutional knowledge. During the investigations, some maintenance needs were identified and will be addressed by the end of FY 2021. At the end of FY 2021, investigations, maintenance, and archiving activities will be complete. Remnants of test activities found at sites include craters, mud pits, debris, and open boreholes. Open boreholes are being plugged and abandoned in accordance with state regulatory standards. Other issues are being addressed in accordance with land owner requests and preferences as well as state regulations. Archiving activities include the development of project summaries identifying key operational details and current condition to allow site managers to be easily briefed. The LM experience at non-nuclear Plowshare and Vela Uniform sites applies to other programs where there is the potential for liability associated with the non-nuclear aspects of nuclear programs. This may include support activities or early phases of planned nuclear projects. Preserving institutional knowledge enables land managers to adequately address any concerns associated with operations and lowers risk. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗