Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “doe”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Integrating Applied Energy and BER Smart Data Capabilities to Develop a DOE Data Fabric for Energy-Water R&D

Focal Area(s): 1) Data acquisition and assimilation enabled by machine learning, AI, and advanced methods including experimental/network design/optimization, unsupervised learning (including deep learning), and hardware-related efforts involving AI (e.g., edge computing). Science Challenge: DOE R&D, including DOE’s Basic Energy Research (BER)’s Environmental Systems Science Division (EESSD) program and DOE’s applied energy research (AER) programs (EERE, FE, and NE) are producers and consumers of Earth systems datasets. This white paper focuses on the first topic area from the call in relation to how crosscutting resources and innovations from DOE’s EESSD and AER can be brought to bear to mutual benefit and more efficient energy-water, Earth system data resources through improved. The overarching challenge posed by this call focuses on how DOE can directly leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to engineer a substantial (paradigm-changing) improvement in Earth System Predictability? While stemming from DOE BER’s EESSD program, this is a challenge that is faced and also being addressed by DOE’s AER programs. Over the past decade plus, FE, EERE, and NE programs have made important strides towards addressing this need. These strides are in many ways highly complementary to EESSD’s MODEX efforts. Energy water systems spanning metocean to groundwater to surface water systems all are data driven whether for basic energy or applied energy. These are remote, multi-variate, complex natural, and in many cases engineered, systems. Key needs and challenges of both EESSD and AER include developing data-focused tools to enhance data search and discovery to fill in knowledge gaps (address sparse data challenge), and rapidly transform datasets, including disparate and multi-source data. Leveraging DOE on-premise computing (HPC, exascale) infrastructure supports the computing-intensive algorithms required to execute these data acquisition and transformation processes to derive enriched knowledge and data, driving AI/ML and big data analytics for these systems. The opportunity lies in combining BER and AER efforts to provide a more robust, advanced, efficient and complete computing data fabric to address energy-water data acquisition and assimilation needs which currently pose significant impediments to AI/ML predictions and research.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Blueprint for DOE Quantum Supercomputing: Ensuring U.S. Leadership in the Quantum Decade

Quantum computing stands at the threshold of a transformative decade, where the field will evolve from small-scale demonstrations toward practical scientific computing at scale. This Blueprint identifies fault-tolerant quantum computers (FTQCs) as a viable, scalable, and broadly applicable path to achieving “quantum scientific utility,” defined as solving scientifically valuable problems beyond the reach of conventional, classical computers. This capability is expected to show scientific demonstrations in the late 2020s and to mature in the early-to-mid 2030s. This Blueprint outlines a strategy to prepare the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for FTQCs and their integration into the U.S. national scientific computing infrastructure. Its purpose is to identify the steps, milestones, and research directions necessary for DOE to enable initial deployment of FTQCs in 2028 as a scientific tool for the nation and mature this capability into the 2030s. DOE has a long history of supporting quantum information science and technology, contributing significantly to research advancements, training a quantum-ready workforce, and providing access to early small-scale quantum hardware. Given recent demonstrations of logical operations on error-corrected logical qubits and the advancement of commercial hardware roadmaps, DOE should begin preparations for large-scale, fault-tolerant quantum computing deployment for DOE science missions. This Blueprint proposes that DOE focus on (1) deploying first-generation scientifically relevant quantum computers with at least 100 logical qubits and performing at least 10,000 to 100,000 hard logical operations in scientifically relevant calculations; (2) developing essential FTQC programming competencies, system software, and facility readiness; and (3) investing in cutting edge focused R&D that fosters breakthroughs in scientific applications, algorithms, and logical architectures needed to accelerate the advent of scientific utility. This effort will position DOE to transition to larger systems: production-scale quantum computers that comprise 1,000 to 10,000 logical qubits, perform 1 to 10 billion hard logical operations, and execute scientifically useful computations at scale. Achieving these goals will require DOE facilities to evolve with urgency to support scientific campaigns that integrate quantum and classical computing resources into efficient workflows, novel software and firmware environments for compiling and routing quantum programs on FTQC machines, and suitable infrastructure for quantum hardware. It will also require further development and optimization of scientific applications from the fields of materials science, quantum chemistry, and high-energy and nuclear physics. The Blueprint calls for transformative R&D and collective action to accelerate the advent of scientific quantum utility and bring it within reach by 2028.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Geographic Information System Based Emergency Response Training Assessments for DOE Radioactive Materials Transport - 20027

Safety and security are priorities of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) radioactive materials shipping campaigns. In the more than 70-year history of domestic transport of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), there has never been a transportation-related radiological injury. To support transportation planning, among the tools that DOE uses is the Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START). START contains geospatial data and transportation route analyses capabilities designed to support a range of DOE transportation planning initiatives. One of those functions is the capability to support emergency response planning and training for State and Tribal jurisdictions located on routes used for DOE shipments of radioactive materials. As part of the Department's commitment to public safety, DOE provides federally-funded radiological response training to emergency responders along DOE radioactive materials transportation corridors through its Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program (TEPP). START contains spatial data representing the locations and emergency-response capabilities of fire departments, police, hospitals, State emergency response centers, and where TEPP-trained personnel are based. The START tool supports State and Tribal users' ability to evaluate emergency-response coverage on active and potential DOE radioactive materials transport routes through their jurisdictions, provide expected response times to reach the scene of an incident, identify equipment available to support a response, and identify the number of response personnel and their respective training levels. In addition, START can be used to identify gaps in coverage along a transportation corridor where additional radiological emergency response training may be needed. This paper describes the data, features, and functionality DOE uses to provide a resource for emergency response training needs assessments for States and Tribes along active and potential routes for transporting radioactive materials, and illustrates its use. It also discusses future plans to integrate TEPP and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) radiological training data to provide a more comprehensive source of geospatial information on personnel who have received equivalent radiological response training. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Fabrication and Testing of DOE Standard Canister Closure Leak Test Assembly

DOE manages over 300 types of SNF, most of which are located at the INL site. “Road-ready dry storage” is a management concept where SNF is packaged into dry, sealed canisters, which are then placed in on-site storage in anticipation of later removal. The Idaho Cleanup Project and INL are collaborating on the Road-Ready Capability Demonstration Project, which will develop and demonstrate the designs, technology, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE SNF for road-ready dry storage. In support of establishing a large-scale road-ready dry storage program at the INL site, the demonstration will package a select amount of DOE-managed SNF into DOE Standard Canisters. The closure process for the DOE Standard Canisters will include fuel and basket loading, welding, inspection, leak testing, and if needed, repair. As a follow-up to previous discussion on the design of the DOE Closure Leak Test Assembly, this report describes recent fabrication and testing efforts performed at INL. DOE Standard Canisters are sealed by two sequential gas tungsten arc welds. Both are performed by remotely operated and semi-autonomous welding systems. The first weld is a circumferential pipe weld that completes assembly of the canister body and lid assembly. The second and final closure weld connects the vent plug to the vent port with an identical butt joint to the circumferential pipe weld. After the second weld is performed on the vent port, these welds are helium leak tested using an inside-out technique. In addition to the commercially available vacuum and leak detector systems, the DOE Standard Canister Closure Leak Test Assembly was designed for both remote and manual operation. This report describes fabrication and performance testing associated with the inside-out technique. INL staff designed and tested systems to accomplish these tasks. Hardware fabrication occurred at INL facilities. Forthcoming work includes design optimization, integration to existing systems, and implementation to packaging demonstration operations.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Evaluation of Neutron Absorbers in the DOE Standardized SNF Canister

The goal of this evaluation was to evaluate different options for a neutron absorber in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Standardized spent nuclear fuel (SNF) Canister. This was accomplished by taking the two most relevant criticality evaluations and replacing the advanced neutron absorber (ANA) basket material with borated stainless steel. This work was initiated, because alternative storage options for DOE SNF has become a priority for DOE. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is initiating activities to ensure the continued operation of the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) by providing alternative and redundant storage options for spent ATR fuel. In addition, the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) has recently initiated studies to understand and improve the technical basis for long-term dry storage of aluminum clad SNF (e.g., ATR, High Flux Isotope Reactor [HFIR]) (Connolly 2018). While currently in the lab-scale phase, the next step involves validation and verification (V&V) of the lab-scale results. One method to perform V&V is to load aluminum-clad spent fuel in an instrumented DOE Standardized SNF Canister as a demonstration. In order to minimize the need for repackaging before disposal and to provide a representative environment in a demonstration, the fuel is planned to be loaded with an appropriate criticality control mechanism, such as neutron absorbing basket material. While ANA was originally selected as the basket material for ATR fuel in the Yucca Mountain Repository, it has never been produced on a large scale. Therefore, incorporating this material in the DOE Standardized SNF Canister as part of a near-term demonstration could be more challenging than moving forward with a commercially available material, such as borated stainless steel. Past evaluations eliminated borated stainless steel as a long-term neutron absorbing material, because it corroded too quickly and may not always remain in the waste package after degradation. This led to the invention and selection of ANA for use as the basket material in the DOE Standardized SNF Canister. After selecting ANA, new corrosion tests were performed on borated stainless steel using a different method for fabrication. This method of fabrication significantly improved the corrosion resistance properties of borated stainless steel, so much so that it out-performed ANA in corrosion testing. Researchers used the information obtained from these tests to select borated stainless steel as the neutron absorber in the Transportation, Aging, and Disposal Canister (TAD) designed for commercial SNF. This evaluation compares the criticality control of borated stainless steel to ANA. In every case and scenario, the calculated effective neutron multiplication factor (k eff ) using a borated stainless steel basket was lower than that using an ANA basket, though the borated stainless steel must be thicker due to corrosion effects over the regulatory time period. Although the borated stainless steel performed better than the ANA, it still required additional neutron-absorbing material, gadolinium shot, for the calculated k eff to fall below the upper critical limit of 0.93 in a few cases evaluated. More research using thicker baskets or inserts could be performed in an attempt to lower the k eff without the use of gadolinium shot. In addition, a reevaluation of the degraded ATR material used in the previous evaluations may prove that the original assumptions were over-conservative.

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

Approaches for Successful Implementation of DOE-STD-3009-2014 - 18585

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a new version of the standard for the Preparation of Non-reactor Nuclear Facility Documented Safety Analysis, DOE-STD-3009-2014. Although this revised standard only specifically applies to new facilities, major modifications to existing facilities, and existing facilities with mitigated offsite consequences greater than 25 rem, other existing DOE nuclear facilities are beginning to implement the new requirements in this revised standard as well. The most obvious change is the consolidation of the eleven Safety Management Program (SMP) chapters into a single chapter. However, development of a compliant safety analysis is more than an effort in shuffling these sections. Examples of the substantive changes include: a more rigorous approach to defense-in-depth; a more comprehensive process for functionally classifying safety-supporting structures, systems and components; explicit direction for evaluating chemical hazards; and additional quantitative analysis for co-located workers. For any facility, the publication of an approved Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) and associated Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) is a significant milestone. However, implementation of the DSA/TSR is often the greater challenge. Ensuring that the implementing assumptions, analysis inputs, and operational limitations are realistic is critical to this success. This should be addressed in the safety basis strategy document. In addition, DSA implementation must occur using a logical and planned approach. The approach should address the following: - Procedure preparation, review and verification; - Operator, mechanic, technician, and support staff training; - Management assessments to evaluate SMP effectiveness; and - Independent assessments to confirm effective DSA implementation. This project approach to managing DSA/TSR development and implementation has been demonstrated as successful at multiple DOE sites. Lessons learned associated with all of these topics will be discussed in the context of the new DOE-STD-3009-2014 requirements. The discussed lessons are taken from the multiple DOE sites and facilities. The presentation describes implemented approaches for successful incorporation of these lessons. While the context for the presentation is DOE-STD-3009-2014, the need to properly manage safety basis development and implementation applies to all nuclear facilities. Thus the lessons and implementation strategies should appeal to a general audience interested in safety basis development. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accuracy of HVAC Load Predictions: Validation of EnergyPlus and DOE-2 using FLEXLAB Measurements

The aim of the project reported here was to better understand the level of accuracy of three building energy simulation (BES) engines (‘engines’) — EnergyPlus™, DOE-2.1e, and DOE-2.2 — by identifying and investigating significant deviations between the performance predicted by these engines and actual performance as measured in the FLEXLAB® test facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). The specific test conditions included some of those prescribed in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140 - Standard Method of Test for the Evaluation of Building Energy Analysis Computer Programs. Detailed measurements of FLEXLAB performance, including indoor temperatures and heat fluxes and air-flow and water flow rates and temperatures in the Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system, together with hourly weather data, were recorded and used in analyzing the simulation results from EnergyPlus v8.8, DOE-2.2 v3.65 and DOE-2.1e v127. These engines are commonly used in the United States for building energy code compliance, federal, state, and utility incentives programs, as well as energy efficient design of new buildings and energy retrofit of existing buildings. Seven conventional overhead mixing ventilation scenarios were tested and each engine was found to have a similar level of agreement with the measurements of space-level heating and sensible cooling loads. These results provide useful information regarding the accuracy of these engines in predicting the cooling and heating load elements of whole building energy performance. This information is intended for practitioners who are concerned about transitioning between simulation tools with different engines and for managers of utility programs leveraging these tools for evaluating and/or projecting measure savings to be incentivized under their programs. The results of the comparisons of simulated and measured performance indicate that the predictions from all three engines are not significantly different. The 24-hour average value of the absolute mean bias indicates the likely magnitude of the error in any particular case. The average mean bias is reduced by cancelation of overprediction in one case by underprediction in another. The daytime absolute mean biases, which may be more important for both energy performance and occupant comfort, are ~6%, presumably because of the greater complexity involved in simulating in the presence of solar radiation. EnergyPlus typically overpredicts the cooling load and/or underpredicts the heating load by ~1.5% and the DOE-2 engines typically underpredict the cooling load by approximately the same amount. The Root Mean Square Error is relatively more sensitive to shorter term variations in the difference between predicted and measured loads; the three engines have similar values, ~10%, suggesting that the uncertainties in their predictions of peak loads may also be similar in magnitude. The implication of these results is that users, both designers and program analysts, can use EnergyPlus, DOE-2.1e, or DOE-2.2 to model conventional commercial buildings equipped with overhead mixing ventilation with a similar level of confidence. Further work is required to better understand the variability in the level of agreement between the engine predictions and FLEXLAB measurements, where a particular engine will agree well with FLEXLAB in some cases and not so well in others and another engine will agree or disagree in different cases. As the sources of this variability are identified and eliminated or reduced significantly, it is recommended that the experimental capabilities and methods developed in the study reported here should be applied to validating heating and cooling load calculations for spaces with different types of furniture and miscellaneous loads. These methods should then be applied to low energy space conditioning systems in EnergyPlus including, in particular, radiant slab and radiant ceiling panel cooling and heating systems and ‘mixed mode’ systems that combine mechanical cooling and natural ventilation systems, focusing on controls, including control of thermal mass. The work reported here addresses the conventional method of heating and cooling occupied spaces; other methods, such as the use of radiant heating and cooling systems have the potential to provide equivalent occupant comfort, or better, with lower energy consumption. These systems are addressed more explicitly in EnergyPlus but there is a need for empirical validation to give users the same level of confidence in modeling these systems that they have, or should have, in modeling conventional systems, based on the results presented here.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

DOE 2013 occupational radiation exposure

The Office of Analysis within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security (EHSS) publishes the annual DOE Occupational Radiation Exposure Report to provide an overview of the status of radiation protection practices at DOE (including the National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA]). The DOE 2013 Occupational Radiation Exposure Report provides an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection dose limits and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) process requirements. In addition, the report provides data to DOE organizations responsible for developing policies for protection of individuals from the adverse health effects of radiation. The report provides a summary and an analysis of occupational radiation exposure information from the monitoring of individuals involved in DOE activities. Over the past five-year period, the occupational radiation exposure information has been analyzed in terms of aggregate data, dose to individuals, and dose by site.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2015

Status of DOE-Managed Waste Repository Safety Assessment Information Needs

The U.S. DOE evaluated the need for disposing of only DOE-Managed high-level-waste (HLW, which includes DOE-managed spent nuclear fuel [SNF] in this report) in a geologic repository by using the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 1982 (NWPA, as amended) and stated (DOE, 2015) “A geologic repository for permanent disposal of Defense HLW could be sited, licensed, constructed, and operated more quickly than a Common NWPA Repository and would provide valuable experience to reduce the cost of a future repository and the time needed to develop it.” Based in part on that report, the President of the United States issued a memorandum stating that such a repository was required (see website with content at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/24/presidential-memorandum-disposal-defensehigh-level-radioactive-waste-se). This furthered the recommendation from DOE (2014) to “…begin implementation of a phased, adaptive, and consent-based strategy with development of a separate mined repository for some DOE-managed HLW and cooler DOE-managed SNF, potentially including some portion of the inventory of naval SNF.” The work in this report summarizes the status of activities within the Used Fuel Disposition Campaign (UFDC) to begin assessing the information needs for evaluating the safety of such a repository, considering both the waste forms being disposed and the repository concepts being considered. This report is milestone M3FT-15SN0824011 performed under the UFDC work package FT-15SN082401 to provide a status of the progress made towards this objective.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

DOE Data Day 2019 Report

The Department of Energy (DOE) has joined the larger scientific community in the promotion of data management as a means to higher quality, more efficient research and analysis, and as a critical component of data science. Tools and platforms to support data management and analysis are rapidly evolving and provide enormous opportunities. They also pose challenges that can be specific to DOE but are common across DOE mission areas and organizations. The DOE Data Day (D3) workshop was held on September 25–26, 2019, and organized by a team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in an effort to gather the data management practitioners at the DOE labs together to share their work and results, facilitating knowledge transfers and best practices across project teams. Over 100 attendees participated from multiple national labs—LLNL, Sandia (SNL), Lawrence Berkeley (LBNL), Los Alamos (LANL), Oak Ridge (ORNL), Argonne (ANL), Pacific Northwest (PNNL), Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC)—along with Mission Support and Test Services (MSTS), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), Pantex, National Security Complex (Y-12), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), and elsewhere in the DOE complex.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

LLNL Response to the DOE ASCR RFI, "Stewardship of Software for Scientific and High-Performance Computing"

For decades, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has been engaged in significant research, development, and support for software to enable scientific computing and, particularly, the use of high performance computing (HPC) in the NNSA mission space. In particular, the move in the mid-1990’s to simulation as a leading component of stockpile stewardship through the ASCI and the successor ASC programs, as well as the need for reliable data acquisition and control software for the National Ignition Facility, have been important drivers in building expertise in production-quality software development at LLNL. LLNL has also been a leader in the DOE SciDAC FASTMath Institute and the DOE Exascale Computing Project (ECP), both of which have striven to make scientific computing software – in particular, the enabling technologies underpinning simulation capabilities – more widely adopted and sustainable. As such, we believe that our experience can inform the broader goal of software stewardship for scientific and high-performance computing. LLNL strongly supports the formation of a new DOE ASCR program element in software stewardship and sustainment. Historically, DOE ASCR has funded applied mathematics and computer science research that has led to the development of important new capabilities and algorithms that are expressed as artifacts in research software. Such frameworks, libraries, and tools have seldom been directly funded to address the important issues of code maintenance, documentation, robustness, and community building. Software engineering and support have typically been done on the side in support of the ASCR-driven research products. DOE funding priorities have been slow to recognize that good software engineering, the kind that ensures research investments have more adoption and longevity, requires significant resources. Based upon our experiences, we have prepared this response to highlight the concerns and issues we believe to be important as DOE ASCR considers its role in scientific software stewardship. We believe that role is important and will require a significant investment of new funding to legitimately support the technologies past and future DOE ASCR investments have and will produce to facilitate their uptake and adoption in the broader scientific computing community. Following a summary of our involvement in scientific software development, the remainder our response is organized around the nine topics specifically identified in the RFI.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling Summary of ASNF in DOE Sealed Standard Canisters

A pathway for road-ready and final disposition packaging configurations for the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ANSF) fuel dictates storage within helium backfilled sealed DOE standard canisters. The typical packaging configuration for the 15-foot DOE canisters places 10 advance test reactor (ATR) elements within a Type 1a basket, and three baskets are loaded within each DOE canister. During in-reactor operations and cooling pond storage conditions, oxyhydroxide layers form on the surface of the aluminum clad fuel. These layers produce hydrogen gas over time due to the fuel’s radiation field. As part of the packing procedure, the ATR fuel should be dried to remove any residual physio-/chemi- sorbed water bound to the surface. The results of this modeling will include results at fully saturated and fully dried conditions. In addition, fuels that are currently stored at the Savannah River Site were also studied for their potential for hydrogen and pressure build up. These two additional fuels modeled were the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) fuel, which is packaged in the same configuration as the ATR, but with a 10-foot-tall DOE standard canister. This was selected due to its relatively high decay heat compared to other DOE-managed ASNF. The second additional fuel studied with the modeling effort was the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) fuel. This fuel is modeled as two separate DOE canisters with the inner and outer annulus split for storage. The HFIR was selected for study due to its high aluminum cladding surface area. In the associated experimental work, Task 2 - Oxyhydroxide Layer Radiolytic Gas Generation Resolution, additional tests were completed in a helium environment, and updated G-values for the radiolytic production of hydrogen from the oxyhydroxide layers were provided. These values were 2.92 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 50% relative humidity and 4.12 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 100% relative humidity. These values are lower than the value for Argon that was used in prior modeling results. In addition, prior modeling results have been completed with the G-value applied to just the mass of the corrosion layer, and this has been updated to apply the G-value for hydrogen generation to the full mass of the fuel. These two effects combine to show much smaller pressure and hydrogen build up for the sealed canister model. For a nominal scenario of stored ATR fuel, after 50 years the model results give a 1.36 atm total pressure, 7% mole percent hydrogen, for the upper decay heat, 1.51 atm total pressure, 16% mole percent hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel 2.6 atm total pressure, 15% mole percent hydrogen. For the MURR nominal case, the model results give 1.34 atm and 6% hydrogen, for upper decay heat this gives 1.41 atm total pressure with 10.8 % hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel, this gives 2.38 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen. The nominal scenario for HFIR fuel gives 1.39 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen, the upper decay heat case gives 1.43 atm with 12.1% hydrogen, and the upper decay heat with undried fuel gives 2.17 atm total pressure with 11.9% hydrogen. These results confirm the ATR scenario bounds the other intact ASNF modeled here. No case modeled yields significant oxygen, and the lower decay heat cases for all fuels modeled have hydrogen concentrations that are under the 4% flammability limit after 50 years of storage. In addition, the modeled pressures for all cases are all significantly below the 500-psi limit for the DOE standard sealed canister.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Code of Record: DOE Standard Canister (DOESC)

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Packaging Demonstration seeks to develop and demonstrate the designs, technology, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE SNF for road-ready dry storage (RRDS); and establish the processes that will be used in a future production facility. The Packaging Demonstration will utilize the DOE Standard Canister (DOESC) for packaging select DOE-managed SNF types for interim storage, transportation and disposal as part of RRDS. Placing DOE-managed SNF into RRDS is part of the strategic framework for SNF on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site. To comply with DOE, INL and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements, this Code of Record establishes the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section III, Division 3 as the Code that will govern DOESC and internal support structure constructioni, with certain clarifications. This Code of Record establishes a rationale for proceeding without construction certification of the DOESC (i.e., “N-stamping) and the extent to which a Registered Professional Engineer is required for the DOE Spent Fuel Packaging Demonstration. Given the (i) standard industry practice to pursue independent licensure of commercial storage casks and transportation packages by the NRC in lieu of ASME certification and (ii) guidance provided by 10 CFR 830, DOESC construction activities need not be certified (i.e., “stamped”) to the ASME BPVC. However, additional quality assurance requirements will apply as outlined in this Code of Record.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 76: US DOE Problematic Waste Streams and Policy Impacts

This panel provided an overview of DOE problematic waste streams including status and path forward. Potential policy implications that exist now and/or in the future were discussed. Topics included, greater-than-Class C low level waste, depleted uranium, and sodium waste. The panel also discussed potential treatment options for these wastes. As part of the introduction, Renee Echols welcomed the audience and went over a quick overview of what would be discussed on the panel. Theresa Kliczewski provided an overview of why this panel is relevant to US Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: there are problematic waste streams that still exist across the DOE cleanup complex. Theresa noted that the DOE EM Headquarters Office of Waste and Materials Management (EM-4.2), for which she is employed with, continues to work with the DOE cleanup sites on a path forward for these problematic waste streams. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Overview of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Path Forward (Theresa Kliczewski, US DOE EM (USA)); 2 - Status of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DoE's Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (Jaffet Ferrer-Torres, US DOE (USA)); 3 - Problematic Waste Streams on the Oak Ridge Reservation (John Wrapp, UCOR (USA)); 4 - K Basin Sludge Removal (Ryan Covert, CH2M Hill PRC (USA)); 5 - Providing Technology Solutions for Treatment of Challenging Waste Streams (Tammy Monday, Perma-Fix Environmental Services (USA)); 6 - Treatment of Problematic Reactive Metal Waste Using the GeoMelt{sup R} In-Container Vitrification (ICV{sup TM}) Process (Ron Mitchell, Veolia Nuclear Solutions (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

DOE-EM/HBCU Projects for Environmental Management Research and Workshop Development at SCSU [Conference Papers/Proceedings]. Final Report

The Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with nine HBCUs in South Carolina and Northeast Georgia. The nine HBCUs (Allen University, Benedict College, Claflin University, Clinton Junior College, Demark Technical College, Morris College, South Carolina State University, Voorhees College and Paine College of Northeast Georgia) have formulated a consortium to address the technical and workforce development needs of the DOE’s Office of Environmental Management. These institutions have the qualifications and expertise to provide the technical cooperation and operations support in the areas of environmental remediation, nuclear regulatory and transportation safety, modeling, technology transfer and workforce development. Several of the HBCUs have received awards from the DOE to address issues related to ground water, surface water, plant communities, the development of an interdisciplinary waste management institute, and the establishment of an environmental science field station. Also, the acquisition of these grant awards have afforded the participating institutions with the ability to instruct students by providing them with the appropriate skill sets to address the future employment needs of DOE to include: Hands-on field experiences; Classroom demonstrations; and, Research and education experiences. South Carolina State University will build upon its existing relationships with DOE-EM by creating a "pipeline" for minorities in Mathematics, Science & Technology, Engineering, Research, and other related fields. Students will be specifically trained and mentored to enter the DOE workforce in these technical areas of need. The integration of technology in research and education is essential for meeting the demanding need to develop a workable mechanism to optimize the effectiveness of research and education in this nation. This is extremely critical in this age of unprecedented technological advances when information delivery, training, and continuous research to improve performance and skill enhancement hold the key to competition. This development relies on a program of applied science to identify and help implement the technologies, as well as programs that energize and mentor the next generation of scientists and engineers. To foster these goals, SCSU proposes research and educational projects that will support the integration of technology in research and education.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Neutron Absorber Considerations for the DOE Standardized Canister

The Department of Energy (DOE) standardized canister is being re-evaluated to support the management of non-commercial spent nuclear fuel. The standardized canister would allow a broad range of DOE-managed fuels to be loaded, stored, transported, and disposed of while avoiding the need to re-open the canister after initial loading, thus preventing repackaging of the material. A key safety function of this package is to ensure the material maintains a sub-critical configuration for storage, transportation, and disposal. DOE-managed 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. To adequately address the diversity of DOE spent nuclear fuel (SNF), a number of basket were designed. The basket material needed to have the ability to ensure subcriticality, be structurally sound, and be corrosion resistant. One such option that was investigated in the late-1990s through mid-2000s was a corrosion-resistant, nickel-chromium-molybdenum alloy containing gadolinium, which was termed the advanced neutron absorber (ANA). A number of analyses were performed to verify the structural, corrosive properties, and neutron absorption performances of this material as well as to compare other potential materials to be used for the basket. Gadolinium-containing carbon steel and borated stainless steel were also considered and evaluated. Boral was briefly considered, but due to its corrosive properties. Each of the evaluated materials have strengths and weaknesses. ANA is the best thermal neutron absorber but lacks confirmatory research for corrosion and weldability. Gadolinium containing carbon steel provides excellent moderator exclusion capabilities but does not contain a sufficient supply of phosphate to ensure the gadolinium precipitates. To minimize the probability of a critical configuration, it is highly desirable for the gadolinium to precipate the probability that the materials will remain within the waste packages over the postclosure time periods of interest. Borated stainless steel has structural integrity and impressive corrosion resistance in most environments, but can undergo galvanic corrosion when in close proximity/contact with aluminum and may experience less than desirable corrosion resistance. This report provides an extensive list and comparison of the materials evaluated to ensure sub-criticality of DOE standardized canister in all credible scenarios. More analyses need to be performed using new and updated corrosion information to re-evaluate the neutron absorber that best meets the objectives of the DOE standardized canister.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Changes in Cleanup Strategies and Long-Term Monitoring Costs for DOE FUSRAP Sites - 17241

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) is responsible for the post-closure management of remediated DOE sites. LM's objective for Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) includes the long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTSM) of sites that have been remediated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). FUSRAP was initiated in 1974 by the US Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency of DOE. FUSRAP was managed by DOE from 1981 to 1997. Through a congressional act, the scope to remediate FUSRAP sites was transferred to USACE in 1997. By 1997, DOE had completed the cleanup of 25 of the 46 sites that were active within the program, and had begun cleanups at 13 additional sites. USACE assumed responsibility for the cleanup of the 21 remaining FUSRAP sites, and 8 additional sites that have been recommended for cleanup. Presently, LM provides long-term stewardship for 30 completed FUSRAP sites while USACE is actively remediating 23 sites. FUSRAP sites are typically privately-owned factories or research facilities. However, there are four DOE owned FUSRAP sites. These sites are Maywood and Middlesex in New Jersey, and Colonie and Niagara Falls in New York. In support of LM's Beneficial Reuse strategic mission, the site in Wayne, New Jersey has been transferred to a municipality and the site in New Brunswick, New Jersey has been sold. Historically, most sites in FUSRAP were remediated to 'unlimited exposure and unrestricted use' cleanup levels consistent with residential use. Some sites were remediated using supplemental limits due to inaccessible areas while remaining sites have been remediated to other-than residential standards based on site-specific long-term land use assumptions. Of the 31 completed FUSRAP sites under LM stewardship, one site requires land-use controls and no site requires groundwater monitoring. Over the next 10 years USACE plans to transfer 11 sites to LM. Several of these sites will have additional long-term monitoring requirements as per their Records of Decisions (RODs). These transitioning sites include the Colonie, New York site, the Maywood and Deepwater, New Jersey, sites and the St. Louis, Missouri site. The additional stewardship requirements will include groundwater monitoring, enforcement of institutional and engineered controls, and five-year reviews. In addition to these sites, more than 100 vicinity properties will also be transferred to LM for stewardship. Given the increase in long-term stewardship activities for these sites and their associated vicinity properties, initiatives are under way to incorporate the additional LTSM requirements into the program's out-year planning. LM will be evaluating several methods to customize LTSM cost and liability estimates for all of the completed FUSRAP sites, planning to address the sites not yet transferred and those that are in LM's custody. Where necessary, LM will use remedial process optimization techniques and evaluate monitored natural attenuation protocols to reduced long-term monitoring costs. Methods for identifying costs include the cost estimates provided in RODs, cost estimates refined during remediation, operation and maintenance costs provided by USACE prior to transition, and presumptive remedies using USACE and Environmental Management / LM historic costs at similar sites. On the basis of this evaluation, a strategy for estimating site-specific LTSM costs will be selected. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 120B: DOE Portsmouth Paducah Project Office (PPPO) Update

This panel focused on the Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (PPPO) of the US DOE Office of Environmental Management, Lexington, Kentucky, the US DOE Featured Site for Thursday. It showcased recent progress, challenges and planned efforts in radioactive waste management, waste disposition, environmental remediation and D and D at the Portsmouth (Ohio) and Paducah (KY) Gaseous Diffusion Plant Sites, as well as the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Conversion Project with facilities at both sites Presentations proposed include: 1 - Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (PPPO) (Joel Bradburne, US DOE Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (USA)); 2 - Portsmouth (Jeff Bettinger, US DOE Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (USA)); 3 - Paducah (Jennifer Woodard, US DOE Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (USA)); 4 - Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Project (Reinhard Knerr, US DOE Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (USA)); 5 - Portsmouth Deactivation and Demolition Project (Bob Smith, Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth (USA)); 6 - Paducah Deactivation and Remediation Project (Jeff Bradford, Four Rivers Nuclear Partnership - FRNP (USA)); 7 - Seven Lines-One Project (Zack Smith, SNC Lavalin (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗