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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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↗

DOE OSTI2015

NSRD-06. Computational Capability to Substantiate DOE-HDBK-3010 Data

Safety basis analysts throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex rely heavily on the information provided in the DOE Hand book, DOE-HDBK-3010, Airborne Release Fractions/Rates and Resp irable Fractions for Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities , to determine source terms. In calcula ting source terms, analysts tend to use the DOE Handbook's bounding values on airbor ne release fractions (ARFs) and respirable fractions (RFs) for various cat egories of insults (representing potential accident release categories). This is typica lly due to both time constraints and the avoidance of regulatory critique. Unfort unately, these bounding ARFs/RFs represent extremely conservative values. Moreover, th ey were derived from very limited small- scale table-top and bench/labo ratory experiments and/or fr om engineered judgment. Thus the basis for the data may not be re presentative to the actual unique accident conditions and configura tions being evaluated. The goal of this res earch is to develop a more ac curate method to identify bounding values for the DOE Handbook using the st ate-of-art multi-physics-based high performance computer codes. This enable s us to better understand the fundamental physics and phenomena associated with the ty pes of accidents for the data described in it. This research has examined two of the DOE Handbook's liquid fire experiments to substantiate the airborne release frac tion data. We found th at additional physical phenomena (i.e., resuspension) need to be included to derive bounding values. For the specific cases of solid powder under pre ssurized condition and mechanical insult conditions the codes demonstrated that we can simulate the phenomena. This work thus provides a low-cost method to establis h physics-justified sa fety bounds by taking into account specific geometri es and conditions that may not have been previously measured and/or are too costly to do so.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2015

Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should be considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment by once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should be considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Final Report: Archiving Data to Support Data Synthesis of DOE Sponsored Elevated CO 2 Experiments

Over the last three decades DOE made a large investment in field-scale experiments in order to understand the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle, and forecast how carbon cycling will change over the next century. The Smithsonian Environmental Research Center received one of the first awards in this program and managed two long-term studies (25 years and 10 years) with a total of approximately $10 million of support from DOE, and many more millions leveraged from the Smithsonian Institution and agencies such as NSF. The present DOE grant was based on the premise that such a large investment demands a proper synthesis effort so that the full potential of these experiments are realized through data analysis and modeling. The goal of the this grant was to archive legacy data from two major elevated carbon dioxide experiments in DOE databases, and to engage in synthesis activities using these data. Both goals were met. All datasets deemed a high priority for data synthesis and modeling were prepared for archiving and analysis. Many of these datasets were deposited in DOE’s CDIAC, while others are being held at the Oak Ridge National Lab and the Smithsonian Institution until they can be received by DOE’s new ESS-DIVE system at Berkeley Lab. Most of the effort was invested in researching and re-constituting high-quality data sets from a 30-year elevated CO 2 experiment. Using these data, the grant produced products that are already benefiting climate change science, including the publication of new coastal wetland allometry equations based on 9,771 observations, public posting of dozens of datasets, metadata and supporting codes from long-term experiments at the Global Change Research Wetland, and publication of two synthetic data papers on scrub oak forest responses to elevated CO 2 . In addition, three papers are in review or nearing submission reporting unexpected long-term patterns in ecosystem responses to elevated CO 2 and nitrogen in a coastal wetland.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Bioremediation of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds: DOE Experiences and Lessons Learned

From the mid-1980s to the present, the Department of Energy (DOE) has developed, tested, and deployed diverse bioremediation strategies for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (cVOCs). A systematic review of these projects after decades of activity provides an opportunity to identify crosscutting themes and lessons learned. The knowledge provided by a DOE bioremediation retrospective represents a resource to support current and future bioremediation operations, and future decisions related to cVOC bioremediation. This systematic review examined the design, objectives, performance and outcomes for remediation projects at DOE sites including Savannah River, Hanford, Idaho, Mound and Pinellas. The results were used to identify emergent themes to provide actionable insights. The bioremediation retrospective technical team first developed standardized criteria to support the systematic review. Then, the evaluation was performed using a sequential process that was informed by local technical experts who identified and provided the structured information that served as the basis for the evaluation. The participation of these experts was invaluable to the effort. Importantly, DOE cVOC bioremediation efforts were implemented based on the foundational knowledge developed by U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) strategic and applied environmental technology development and certification programs, as well as technical, policy and regulatory guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), industry, and universities. To maximize the value of the DOE cVOC bioremediation retrospective, the systematic review strategy focused on identifying important DOE-specific experiences, trends and lessons learned that would extend the knowledge available from these other key entities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

The Potential Role of Concentrating Solar Power within the Context of DOE's 2030 Solar Cost Targets

For solar electricity generating technologies to be cost competitive at a large scale with conventionally generated electricity, cost reductions are needed for both concentrating solar power (CSP) and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established solar cost targets that corresponded to reducing CSP and PV prices by approximately 75% in order to achieve a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of $0.06 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for both utility-scale PV and high-capacity factor CSP-TES systems in 2020. Utility-scale PV achieved its 2020 cost target in 2017, and recent estimates for the LCOE of CSP-TES with a molten-salt power tower system are approximately $0.10/kWh for projects that are expected to come online in 2020, which represents a substantial reduction since 2010 - when the LCOE for CSP-TES was around $0.21/kWh. To continue the momentum for cost reductions in solar technologies, DOE recently established cost targets for 2030 that would make solar one of the lowest-cost sources of new electricity in the United States. For CSP-based systems, the new targets correspond to an LCOE in 2030 of $0.05/kWh for a dispatchable, high-capacity factor CSP-TES plant configuration. This aggressive target would have been unimaginable a decade ago. However, building on the previously described reduction in CSP-TES costs over the past decade, recent announcements suggest the next phase of projects will continue this downward trend through lower installation costs, attractive financing, longer-duration PPAs, and the ability to capitalize on the value that the flexibility of storage brings CSP. This presentation summarizes a recent report that evaluates the potential impacts of simultaneously achieving the 2030 cost targets for PV and CSP-TES, and it includes a detailed evaluation of the role that CSP-TES could play in realizing those impacts. The scenarios in this analysis are designed to isolate and assess the potential impacts of achieving DOE's 2030 cost targets for CSP-TES and PV, and they do not reflect the potential benefits or system impacts associated with success in other DOE research programs. The low-cost solar scenarios include DOE's 2030 solar cost targets--which are represented via a roughly 50% reduction in LCOE by 2030 (from current levels) with additional cost reductions thereafter representing technology learning and/or improvements that could result from innovation - coupled with a variety of market, technology, and demand assumptions. With these assumptions, the evolution of the contiguous U.S. electricity system is evaluated with NREL's Renewable Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model, which was specifically designed to represent the temporal and locational value of renewable generation technologies in the U.S. power system. ReEDS relies on system-wide least-cost optimization to estimate the type and location of future generation and transmission capacity. In addition, it accounts for the locational and temporal variations in variable renewable technologies, including the need for new transmission, curtailment, dynamic capacity value, and the need to hold operating reserves to account for the uncertainty and variability of these technologies. This presentation summarizes the key findings that arise from a detailed evaluation of the impacts of achieving DOE's 2030 cost targets for CSP-TES and PV systems, noting again the inherent challenges associated with modeling future scenarios of the large, complex system electricity system in the contiguous United States within the context of various market features.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2017

DOE Zero Energy Ready Homes

This article describes the U.S. Department of Energy's Zero Energy Ready Home Program and Housing Innovation Awards. Since 2013, builders around the country have certified over 1,170 homes to the high performance criteria of the DOE Zero Energy Ready Home program. Each year DOE recognizes the best innovators among this group with the DOE Housing Innovation Awards. 2017 winners will be announced at an awards event taking place at the Energy & Environmental Building Alliance (EEBA) high-performance home summit October 10-12, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia. Twenty-five builders are expected to take home awards and grand award winners in each of the five competition categories will be revealed at the conference. Participating builders represent every climate zone in the country and DOE Zero Energy Ready labeled homes can be found in 34 states. Homes represent the full spectrum of the U.S. construction industry, from affordable to production to custom homes and from single-family detached to duplexes and up to five-story multifamily buildings as well as some retrofit projects have also met the criteria. Every DOE ZER certified home is certified through the ENERGY STAR Certified Homes (Version 3.0, revision 8) program and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Indoor airPLUS program. Each home must meet the hot water distribution requirements of the EPA’s WaterSense program and the insulation requirements of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code. If the home has HVAC ducts, they must be installed within the conditioned space of the home. Appliances, exhaust fans, ceiling fans, and most of the lighting should be ENERGY STAR qualified. The DOE Zero Energy Ready Home program also requires homes to have solar electric panels installed or at a minimum to have the conduit and electrical panel space in place for future PV installation, if the home is in a location appropriate for solar power. Homes are constructed with enough energy efficiency built in so that, with a reasonable amount of solar PV panels (i.e., small enough to fit comfortably on the roof), the home could produce enough of its own power to equal the power it uses in a year.

U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Pr↗

DOE OSTI2022

Modeling of ATR Fuel in DOE Standard Canisters with Helium Backfill

One pathway for road-ready and final disposition packaging configurations for the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ANSF) fuel is storage within helium backfilled sealed Department of Energy (DOE) standard canisters. The typical packaging configuration for the 15-foot DOE standard canisters places 10 advance test reactor (ATR) elements a 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. A 50-year CFD model of the DOE canister packaged with fuel was developed to provide a temperature profile for coupled chemical modeling of the conditions within the canister. The results of this modeling include results at fully saturated and fully dried fuel cladding conditions. In the associated experimental work, radiolysis experiments tests were completed in a helium environment, and G-values for the radiolytic production of hydrogen from the oxyhydroxide layers were provided. That reaction was coupled with the thermal profiles and gas-phase reactions to develop a 50-year model of the conditions within a sealed DOE canister with ATR fuel. 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. No case modeled yields significant oxygen, and for the lower decay heat case that is modeled, hydrogen concentrations are under the 4% flammability limit after 50 years of storage. The modeled pressures for all cases modeled are below the pressure limit for the DOE standard sealed canister.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2016

Brownfields to Brightfields: A Sustainability Initiative at DOE'S East Tennessee Technology Park Cleanup - 16120

As DOE works toward completing their cleanup mission at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), the ultimate goal is to return property no longer needed for government use to the community for beneficial re-use. The vision for ETTP is to transform the former gaseous diffusion facility into a commercial industrial park, leveraging the site's infrastructure to attract businesses to the site. While hundreds of acres at ETTP have been transferred for re-use, areas within the former production footprint of the site have future use restricted due to the presence of residual contamination, underground structures and utilities and/or physical features that limit their reuse potential. Brownfield redevelopment with solar energy generation has proven to be an excellent option for beneficial reuse and sustainability thanks to the flexible nature of solar photovoltaic technology and design that can address the restrictions and limitations of the site. Developing a solar project on a cleanup site can be challenging due to a large number of stakeholders and regulatory compliance issues of the environmental legacy at DOE cleanup sites; however, the challenges can be offset by the available infrastructure and low cost property. The requirement for large amounts of land or surface area is a major constraint to the growth of photovoltaic solar systems. An average solar generating facility requires 2 or more hectares (5 acres) for each megawatt (MW) of power generated. Re-using land that is otherwise un-developable provides a cost effective site for renewable energy generation to innovative solar developers. At ETTP, DOE's Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management and the community reuse organization (Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee - CROET) supported a local small business (Restoration Services, Inc. - RSI) familiar with the site and environmental regulations to secure a power purchase agreement with the regional electric provider (Tennessee Valley Authority - TVA) for a 1 MW utility-scale photovoltaic solar facility. The solar facility, Powerhouse Six, was developed through a commercial partnership (RSI and Vis Solis, Inc.) that worked closely with the lead ETTP site cleanup contractor (URS-CH2M Oak Ridge LLC - UCOR) and the local government. The selected site at ETTP had limitations on subsurface disturbance to 10 feet below ground surface because of utility ducts and residual contamination. Near surface relics (facility foundation remnants) were also found to prohibit ground penetration. A photovoltaic solar design using a ballasted ground mount system was developed to conform to the restrictions. The ballasted system could follow existing land contours, eliminating the need for any extensive site preparation and avoiding the risk of ground penetration. The lead cleanup contractor's role in facilitating the completion of this project included making the necessary environmental assessment documentation available to obtain the construction notice to proceed from the regional electric provider. They accelerated the transfer of ETTP power lines and electric demand to the city electric department to accommodate connection to the electric grid and supplied the communication connection required for metering the electric power generation. DOE's support along with their cleanup contractor's re-industrialization program and power integration group provided regular communication with the project stakeholders for more than six months to facilitate the early transfer of the utility infrastructure. Powerhouse Six sustainability benefits: - Generates enough clean energy to power more than 100 homes or prevents pollution equivalent to removing 240 cars from the road annually (1,141 metric tons of carbon dioxide); - Provides Brownfield reuse/redevelopment at ETTP; - Eliminates the generation of wastes through excavation and saves money to cleanup other areas for re-use; - Supports regional electric provider's renewable energy initiative; - Offers community economic development/ jobs and property tax income to the City of Oak Ridge; - Demonstrates benefit of ETTP re-industrialization; - Provides long-term lease payments to the community reuse organization; - Supports DOE renewable energy goals; - Demonstrates collaboration between DOE and a public utility for renewable energy development. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2016

Planning for Future Implementation of Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act: DOE's Policy Implementation Exercise - 16612

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Fuels Storage and Transportation Planning Project (NFST) is currently conducting a 2-year Section 180(c) Proposed Policy Implementation Exercise (the Exercise) with eight states and one Native American Tribe. Under Section 180(c) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), as amended, the DOE is responsible for providing technical and financial assistance to states and Tribes through whose jurisdictions the Secretary of Energy plans to transport spent nuclear fuel (SNF) or high-level radioactive waste to a NWPA-authorized facility for training of local public safety officials. In the 2000's, DOE staff worked closely with state and tribal representatives to develop a revised proposed policy to implement Section 180(c), including grants for assessment and planning activities, as well as training for public safety officials. This revised proposed policy was published in a Federal Register Notice in 2008 (2008 FRN) (73 Federal Register 64933, Oct. 31, 2008). The purpose of the current Exercise is to evaluate the efficacy of DOE's 2008 revised proposed policy for implementing Section 180(c), and identify and resolve outstanding issues. This paper describes how the Exercise was collaboratively designed between DOE and state and tribal stakeholders; how it is being conducted; the interim lessons learned from the first year of the Exercise; and how it may inform and improve future consultations between DOE and state, tribal, and local public safety officials. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Status Update on TRAC: A DOE-EM Tool for Tracking Groundwater Cleanup and Progress Toward Site Closure - 20245

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) uses a customized, web-based mapping tool called TRAC (Tracking Restoration and Closure) to communicate information on plume sizes, remedial approaches, regulatory drivers, exit strategies, and long-term stewardship requirements at all sites within the DOE-EM complex. The web-based GIS story maps provide robust geospatial visualization of plumes at DOE sites using an intuitive interface that allows users to explore the plume maps, explanatory text, photographs, and video. This collection of story maps not only communicates information for each individual site, but also summarizes pertinent metrics on cleanup and remaining contaminants across all EM sites. This paper describes a new design within TRAC for communicating metrics on plume status, regulatory cleanup progress, and technology implementation. A principal benefit of TRAC is the ability to view individual pieces of data at a time, permitting targeted questions to be addressed, such as the status of regulatory decisions, site cleanup priorities, and site closure needs for each site within the DOE-EM complex. TRAC manages communication and supports decision-making through knowledge access, data and information transparency and traceability, and inclusive participation. It serves as a common resource that provides consistent information for DOE managers, site personnel, regulators and stakeholders. Because long-term stewardship of legacy waste sites requires ongoing coordination and communication among DOE, regulators, and stakeholders, TRAC can also be used to help transition EM sites to the Office of Legacy Management at site closure. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2015

The DOE Criticality safety support group - A retrospective perspective - 14580

The Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Criticality Safety Support Group (CSSG) came into being as a response to the DNFSB recommendation 1997-2 'Criticality Safety' which dealt with the continuation of criticality safety at defense nuclear facilities in the Department of Energy Enterprise. The DNFSB was concerned over the lack of capability management of practical experience pertinent to avoiding a criticality accident in non-reactor environments. One of the specific recommendations of 1997-2 was to 'Identify a core group of criticality experts experienced in the theoretical and experimental aspects of neutron chain reactions to advise on the above steps and assist in resolving future technical issues'. The CSSG, a group of 10 recognized experts in criticality safety, was chartered in late 1997 to address the recommendation. Members of the CSSG are drawn from DOE employees and contractor staff to provide advice and technical support to help meet the criticality safety needs of DOE missions, including stockpile stewardship, materials stabilization, transportation, storage, facilities life cycle (design through decommissioning), and waste disposal. The CSSG is an integral part of the DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) developed to maintain and enhance the operational and technical criticality safety expertise and capability within the Department of Energy Enterprise. This paper outlines the history, purpose and continuing contribution of the CSSG as well as providing an understanding of the interfaces between the DOE CSSG, the DOE Criticality Safety Coordinating Team (CSCT), the ANS Nuclear Criticality Safety Division and the EFCOG Criticality Safety Subgroup. (authors)

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Fabrication and Testing of DOE Standard Canister Closure Leak Test Assembly

DOE manages over 300 types of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), many of which are located at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site. Managing this large variety of SNF for storage, transportation, and disposal poses a challenge to DOE. The Idaho Cleanup Project and INL are collaborating on the DOE SNF Road-Ready Demonstration (“Road-Ready Demonstration”), which will develop and demonstrate the designs, technology, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE-managed SNF for “road-ready dry storage.” Road-ready dry storage is an SNF management concept in which SNF is packaged into dry, sealed canisters that are then placed in onsite storage in anticipation of later transport and disposition. The forward-looking goal of the Road-Ready Demonstration is to establish the foundation for a large-scale road-ready dry storage program at the INL site. In support of establishing a large-scale road-ready dry storage program at the INL site, the Road-Ready Demonstration will first package Fort St. Vrain SNF currently in dry storage at INL into several DOE Standard Canisters (DOESCs). These DOESCs will in turn be loaded into another containment similar to commercial multi-purpose canisters. This multi-purpose canister will then be compatible with a transportation or storage system, such as a storage cask for interim storage or transportation package for offsite transport. These DOESCs will remain sealed over the course of their storage, transportation, and applicable disposal functions. The closure process for the DOESC will include fuel and basket loading, welding, inspection, leak testing, and, if needed, repair. As a follow-up to previous discussions on the design of the DOE Closure Leak Test Assembly (LTA), this report describes recent fabrication and testing efforts performed at INL. DOESCs are sealed by two sequential gas tungsten arc welds, both of which are performed by remotely operated and semiautomatic welding systems. The first weld is a circumferential pipe weld that completes the assembly of the canister body and lid assembly. The second and final closure weld attaches the vent plug to the vent socket via a butt joint. After the second weld is performed, the welds are helium leak tested using an evacuated envelope technique. The LTA was designed for both remote and manual operation. This report describes the fabrication and performance testing associated with the evacuated envelope technique. INL staff designed, fabricated, and tested the LTA at INL facilities. This testing included establishing technique and system sensitivities in accordance with ASME and American National Standards Institute N14.5 requirements. Forthcoming work will cover such areas as design optimization, process and personnel qualification, and implementation in Road-Ready Demonstration operations.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Fabrication and Testing of DOE Standard Canister Closure Leak Test Assembly – 24139

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

DOE SNF Packaging Demonstration Project: Worktable and Canister Loading Sleeve Design [Slides]

This presentation is a briefing for summer interns and others outside the project, to give them a summary of ongoing design activities. The DOE SNF Packaging Demonstration Project is an effort to develop and demonstrate the designs, technology, processes, and regulatory framework for packaging DOE-managed spent nuclear fuel (SNF) for road ready dry storage (RRDS). The project is to remotely load and seal two types of DOE-managed SNF from the CPP-603 facility into DOE Standard Canisters, place the sealed DOE Standard Canisters into commercial vendor over-canisters (equivalent to commercial MPCs), seal and place the over-canisters into commercial vendor storage overpacks, and place the storage system (over-canister and storage overpack) onto the CPP-2707 cask pad.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2019

Neutron Absorber Considerations for the DOE Standardized Canister Powerpoint

The DOE Standardized SNF Canister will allow a broad range of DOE-managed fuels to be loaded, stored, transported, and disposed of while avoiding the need to re-open canisters after being sealed. A key safety function of the DOE Standardized SNF Canister is to ensure the material maintains a subcritical configuration for storage, transportation, and disposal. Researchers designed a basket made of a material which should ensure subcriticality (e.g. by geometry control and inclusion of neutron absorber) and be structurally sound. The basket material should resist the corrosive effects of a 10,000 year period in a breached container and still provide adequate neutronic isolation or degrade in a form which prevents a critical configuration of fissile material. This report summarizes the materials evaluated to ensure subcriticality of the DOE Standardized SNF Canister for credible disposal scenarios. Recommendations for future work include performing criticality evaluations using borated stainless steel for the basket material in the DOE Standardized SNF Canister and determining the solubility on boron’s corrosion products. If researchers determine the properties of borated stainless steel are insufficient, ANA needs to undergo more corrosion testing and continue the process to become an ASME code case for welded construction.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗