Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Disposition Options”

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.

48 records · Page 3

Dilute and Dispose Cost Estimate for Equipment Installation per the LCCE

As directed in the Consolidation Appropriations Act, 2016, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) initiated the preconceptual design and development of a Lifecycle Cost Estimate for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition (SPD) Dilute and Dispose Program. Based on August 2016 Program Requirements Document and subsequent supplemental guidance, LANL prepared the Lifecycle Cost Estimate under key assumptions that meet the program’s requirements. For Dilute and Dispose, the program would disposition surplus Pu by diluting oxide produced at LANL with inhibitor materials, packaging the materials in containers, and shipping the containers to a deep geologic repository for permanent disposal. The base assumption is that LANL would disassemble pits, convert the Pu metal to oxide, and characterize and package the material for shipment to SRS, where it would be diluted prior to geologic disposal at the WIPP site in New Mexico. Another major assumption for the Dilute and Dispose option is that LANL would increase the current oxide production rate (or throughput) to 1500 kg/year, 5 times higher than the maximum annual production of ~300 Kgs executed by the ARIES Oxide Production Program at LANL. Analysis based on the ARIES program’s throughput model revealed that 15 pieces of equipment would need to be installed within PF-4 and certain facility improvements would need to be accomplished in order to meet the desired throughput levels. The additional equipment would be essentially identical to equipment already used within PF-4 for existing operations.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Design and Testing of a 2-Hour Oxygen Prebreathe Protocol for Space Walks from the International Space Station

To develop and test a 2-hour prebreathe protocol for performing extravehicular activities (EVAs) from the International Space Station (ISS). Combinations of adynamia (non-walking), prebreathe exercise, and space suit donning options (10.2 vs. 14.7 psi) were evaluated, against timeline and consumable contraints to develop an operational 2- hour prebreathe protocol. Prospective accept/reject criteria were defined for decompression sickness (DCS) and venous gas emboli (VGE) from analysis of historical DCS data, combined with risk management of DCS under ISS mission circumstances. Maximum operational DCS levels were defined based on protecting for EVA capability with two crew-members at 95% confidence, throughout ISS lifetime (within the constraints of NASA DCS disposition policy JPG 1800.3). The accept/reject limits were adjusted for greater safety based on analysis of related medical factors. Monte-Carlo simulation was performed to design a closed sequential, multi-center human trial. Protocols were tested with 4 different prebreathe exercises (Phases I-IV), prior to exposure to 4.3 psi for 4 hrs. Subject selection, Doppler monitoring for VGE, test termination criteria, and DCS definitions were standardized. Phase I: upper and lower body exercises using dual-cycle ergometry (75% VO2 max for 10 min). Phase II: ergometry plus 24 min of light exercise (simulating space-suit preparations). Phase III: same 24 min of light exercise but no ergometry, and Phase IV: 56 min of light exercise without ergometry. A prebreathe procedure was accepted if, at 95% confidence, the incidence of DCS was less than 15% (with no Type II DCS), and Grade IV VGE was less than 20%.

Gernhardt, Michael L.↗

Advanced Reactors Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology Program

Based on the higher interest in Advanced Reactor (AR) deployment (e.g., ARDP ) for potential new fuel cycles, the Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Program has begun to evaluate the possible implications of long-term management and final disposition of potential Advance Reactor spent nuclear fuels (SNF) that would be generated in potential advanced reactors. Safely managing and dispositioning the potential future AR SNF, and any other associated radioactive wastes, is the primary focus of this initial preliminary assessment of those. This paper summarizes three primary tasks the Spent Fuel & Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Program is executing (or collaborating on) related to the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle (BENFC) for potential future advanced reactors: 1. Advanced Reactors Spent Fuel and Waste Streams: Strategies for the BENFC This set of activities define a high-level strategy for how to systematically approach, identify, and close research and development (R&D) gaps/potential issues associated with long-term management and final disposition of AR SNF and other possible AR waste streams. This task involves summarizing advanced reactor concepts, their likely SNF and other waste forms, and identifying previous experience with similar materials, for example from DOE-managed SNF, with closely related characteristics to the potential future AR SNF. Technical R&D gaps between the breadth of detailed understanding for safe storage, transportation and disposal of the existing light water reactor SNF fuel cycle (e.g., see NASEM, 2022) and potential future fuel cycles based on advanced reactors would then be identified. 2. Characterization and Packaging Options of Advanced Reactor SNF These activities evaluate characteristics and packaging options for advanced reactor spent fuel forms. The fuel forms are categorized into three types: (1) tri-structural isotropic (TRISO), (2) metallic, and (3) fuel salt. Emphasis is given to TRISO and metallic SNF and additional waste streams from such AR as driven by the near-term anticipated operation of the Xe-100 and the Natrium reactors as advanced-reactor demonstrations1. Preliminary information for the spent-fuel salt discharged from molten-salt reactors (MSRs) is examined to provide a baseline for future efforts. All calculations and assumptions in this work are based on publicly available information. The following characteristics are calculated or estimated for use in the preliminary assessments: SNF volume and mass, radiation/activity levels through time, thermal conditions through time, potential radionuclide source terms, chemical interactions and evolutions, disposal inventories, and waste-form lifetime. Using those characteristics, calculations to determine the applicability of existing canister designs were performed. These evaluations included geometric (e.g., dimension, volume) and mass/weight considerations, known operational approaches and loading procedures, physical and chemical considerations/conditions for storage environments, as-loaded radiation, thermal, and criticality analyses to identify constraints for storage, transportation, and disposal. 3. Back-End Management of Advanced Reactors (BEMAR) The DOE NE-8 organization has defined an Integrated Project Team to evaluate the Back End Management of Advanced Reactors (BEMAR) (includes DOE staff from a range of organizations (e.g., NE-81, NE-82, OCED) and national laboratory technical staff within the DOE NE-81 and NE-82 programs). This BEMAR group works directly with advance reactors developers to assess for the DOE the technical feasibility of storage, transportation, and disposal of AR SNF based on the characteristics provided by the developers to DOE (much of which is proprietary). The BEMAR is also tasked to develop rough-order-of-magnitude cost estimates to compare the waste management system for individual advanced reactors to existing light-water reactor management practices. To accomplish this, the BEMAR group is implementing a Systems Engineering approach.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Advances in GDSA Framework Development and Process Model Integration

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Spent Fuel & Waste Disposition (SFWD) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and highlevel nuclear waste (HLW). A high priority for SFWST disposal R&D is to develop a disposal system modeling and analysis capability for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media. This report describes fiscal year (FY) 2020 advances of the Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) Framework and PFLOTRAN development groups of the SFWST Campaign. The common mission of these groups is to develop a geologic disposal system modeling capability for nuclear waste that can be used to probabilistically assess the performance of disposal options and generic sites. The capability is a framework called GDSA Framework that employs high-performance computing (HPC) capable codes PFLOTRAN and Dakota.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

2020 LANL Contributions to the BATS Test in WIPP

The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) repository research and development program seeks to provide a sound technical basis for multiple viable disposal options, increase confidence in the robustness of generic disposal concepts, and develop science and engineering tools needed to support disposal concept implementation. Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Berkeley National labs are conducting research into salt, which includes the Brine Availability Test in Salt (BATS) field test at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a DOE Office of Environmental Management facility. BATS is leveraging the existing infrastructure associated with the WIPP to advance science informing generic disposal concepts. BATS is an ongoing heated borehole experiment being conducted in the WIPP underground. The goal of this experiment is to reduce the uncertainty associated with spent nuclear fuel disposition in geologic salt formations. The BATS experiments is designed to accomplish this by increasing our understanding of brine migration in salt, assessing damaged zones from mining and drilling, simulating a post-closure environment, confirming salt properties, and providing data for model validation. Phased testing for generic salt repository R&D was proposed in 2015. Subsequently, borehole thermal testing was developed as a first step in this process. This document summarizes the work conducted on the BATS experiment during fiscal year 2020 with an emphasis on the contributions by Los Alamos National Lab.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Systems Maintenance Automated Repair Tasks (SMART)

SMART is a uniform automated discrepancy analysis and repair-authoring platform that improves technical accuracy and timely delivery of repair procedures for a given discrepancy (see figure a). SMART will minimize data errors, create uniform repair processes, and enhance the existing knowledge base of engineering repair processes. This innovation is the first tool developed that links the hardware specification requirements with the actual repair methods, sequences, and required equipment. SMART is flexibly designed to be useable by multiple engineering groups requiring decision analysis, and by any work authorization and disposition platform (see figure b). The organizational logic creates the link between specification requirements of the hardware, and specific procedures required to repair discrepancies. The first segment in the SMART process uses a decision analysis tree to define all the permutations between component/ subcomponent/discrepancy/repair on the hardware. The second segment uses a repair matrix to define what the steps and sequences are for any repair defined in the decision tree. This segment also allows for the selection of specific steps from multivariable steps. SMART will also be able to interface with outside databases and to store information from them to be inserted into the repair-procedure document. Some of the steps will be identified as optional, and would only be used based on the location and the current configuration of the hardware. The output from this analysis would be sent to a work authoring system in the form of a predefined sequence of steps containing required actions, tools, parts, materials, certifications, and specific requirements controlling quality, functional requirements, and limitations.

Schuh, Joseph↗

GDSA Framework Development and Process Model Integration FY2022

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Spent Fuel & Waste Disposition (SFWD) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW). A high priority for SFWST disposal R&D is disposal system modeling (Sassani et al. 2021). The SFWST Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) work package is charged with developing a disposal system modeling and analysis capability for evaluating generic disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media. This report describes fiscal year (FY) 2022 advances of the Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) performance assessment (PA) development groups of the SFWST Campaign. The common mission of these groups is to develop a geologic disposal system modeling capability for nuclear waste that can be used to assess probabilistically the performance of generic disposal options and generic sites. The modeling capability under development is called GDSA Framework (pa.sandia.gov). GDSA Framework is a coordinated set of codes and databases designed for probabilistically simulating the release and transport of disposed radionuclides from a repository to the biosphere for post-closure performance assessment. Primary components of GDSA Framework include PFLOTRAN to simulate the major features, events, and processes (FEPs) over time, Dakota to propagate uncertainty and analyze sensitivities, meshing codes to define the domain, and various other software for rendering properties, processing data, and visualizing results.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

How To Maintain Effective IAEA Safeguards While Reducing Facility Impact

For almost twenty years, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency have been visiting the K-Area Material Storage facility at the Savannah River Site where excess plutonium has been placed under IAEA safeguards as part of the United States Volunatary Offer Agreement. During that time, the mission of K-Area Complex has expanded from storage of nuclear matieral to glovebox operations in support of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Plutonium Disposition program. With this change in mission, it is becoming increasingly challenging to manage facility staff radiation exposure and operating activities during the IAEA’s annual Physcial Inventory Verifications (PIV). This study has identified both near-term and long-term recommendations for IAEA monitoring protocols that would allow the IAEA to maintain effective safeguards of the material while decreasing the impact to the facility. A statisitical analysis has shown that reducing the number of containers measured during an annual PIV from 12 to 4 still ensures a high level of confidence in the confidence while reducing the inspector time in the facility amd with a corresponding significant reduction in personnel radiation exposure. A modified installation pattern of Remotely Monitored Sealing Arrays (RMSAs) is also proposed utilizing only the outer rows of arrays of stored material containers in the Stack Area (SA). The modified RMSA placement will provide equivalent protection, while significantly reducing personnel radiological exposure, manpower requirements and associated costs. With advances in technology, there are additional potential options in containment/surveillance and continuity of knowledge that would allow the agency to be outside of the facility during PIV measurements and have confidence in the accuracy and authencitity of the results.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW PPT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Co-Disposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW - 20331

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types, such as light- and heavy-water-moderated reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and breeder reactors, with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and condition of SNF, a robust canister termed the DOE Standardized SNF Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard SNF Canister had four variations consisting of a 10- or 15-foot length and an 18- or 24-inch diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository these canisters were to be grouped with 24-inch diameter HLW canisters in a codisposal waste package. The 18-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The 24-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister would take the place of one the five HLW canister on the outer ring in the codisposal waste package. No DOE Standardized SNF Canisters have been loaded, and many fuel types can be loaded in multiple canisters. Depending on the selected diameter of the DOE Standardized SNF Canister for a particular fuel, the number of potential codisposal waste packages could vary. In addition, different types of DOE SNF may be able to be combined in a single canister. This could significantly change the number of DOE SNF canisters that are loaded and result in a decrease of the number of total potential codisposal waste packages. Ultimately, if too many HLW canisters need disposition, then a reduction in the number of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will change the final total of codisposal waste packages very little. Likewise, if the ratio of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters to HLW canister produced is too high, then DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will not have enough HLW canisters to surround them in the codisposal waste package. This paper examines the results of differing loading strategies for a few DOE SNFs. It also compares the ranges of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters that may be produced to the ranges of HLW canisters that may be produced in order to determine potential scenarios.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

A Crew and Logistics Lander for the Common Habitat Architecture

The Common Habitat Architecture is a conceptual study that explores the use of a large habitat derived from the Space Launch System (SLS) liquid oxygen tank as a core habitation element that can be used for crew missions or training in 0g, 1/6g, 3/8g, and 1g. This is not part of current NASA Artemis mission planning, but instead represents an architecture that could potentially follow after the Artemis missions and initial human Mars landings. This architecture leverages Starship-derived vehicles for crew landing on and ascent from the Moon and Mars in support of long-duration surface missions with pressurized crew transfer baselined as a nominal capability. This is not the Human Landing System variant of Starship but represents a number of modifications to enable long-duration surface missions with an eight-person crew size. A rapid brainstorming study was conducted in February of 2021, using only public data, to identify options to deliver the 90-ton Common Habitat to the surface and emplace it at the intended habitation site. This study compared three lunar lander concepts and three Mars lander concepts before ultimately selecting the SpaceX Starship as the most viable lander. The Common Habitat Architecture assumes that this Starship variant can further be modified for crew and cargo delivery, assuming that the use of a common system will lead to cost benefits. It is assumed that the Starship will expend too much propellant in landing crew and logistics to be able to launch, given the assumed absence of surface propellant production. Consequently, a separable ascent stage is used for crew ascent. The pressurized elements of this modified Starship are discussed: Starship Ascent Module, Airlock, Transfer Tunnel, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module, and Logistics Modules. For each element, a description, dimensions, rough mass estimates, core capabilities, and design features are presented. Key mechanisms and internal structures of the starship are also discussed. This will include flame diverters for the ascend module, the orbital docking hatch, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module Garage door, Starship Ascent Module fairing, flame diverter blow-out panels, Pressurized Crew Transfer Module lift system, logistics module lift system, contingency crew ascent via the logistics module lift system, internal catwalks, and structural interfaces. Concept of Operations will be discussed for both Moon and Mars. This will include in-space crew rendezvous and transfer, crewed landing, shirtsleeve crew transfer, crew departure, contingency surface operations, and final element disposition. Key differences for Mars will be discussed, such as the Martian atmosphere, dust storms, the absence of crew handover, and Deep Space Exploration Vehicle rendezvous. Contingency microgravity maintenance access will also be discussed. This work will demonstrate viable pressurized crew transfer with a Starship-based lander architecture. Forward work includes Garage lighting and camera systems, Starship Ascent Module propulsion system and docking port trades, contingency habitation trades, and mass/power equipment estimation. Finally, forward work includes developing a heavy cargo return system derived from the Crew and Logistics Starship. The goal of this system is the return of at least 10,000 kg payloads from the surfaces of the Moon and Mars.

Lunar Lander↗