Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Nuclear data analysis and compilation”

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.

100 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Vadose Zone Model for SALDS for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP) is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain. The Hanford Site Central Plateau was subdivided into 26 individual vadose zone models, with 13 in the 200 East Area and 13 in the 200 West Area. Waste sites that have a completed performance assessment (PA) or past-leak analysis were not included as sources of radionuclides. Instead the vadose zone to groundwater transfer rates of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Integrated Disposal Facility, US Ecology, and Waste Management Area C (WMA C) PAs and the past-leak analysis for WMA C were used as direct input to the P2R model. Each of the vadose zone models is documented in separate environmental calculation files (ECFs). This ECF describes the State-Approved Land Disposal Site (SALDS) model. The scope of this ECF is to document the development and results of the SALDS vadose zone model. CP-63515, Model Package Report: Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models, describes the approach, assumptions, process of determining the number of models required and domain of each model, input data, and processing common to all the models.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Vadose Zone Model for B-3A/B Pond for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort; carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP) simulator officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain. The Hanford Site Central Plateau was subdivided into 26 individual vadose zone models, with 13 in the 200 East Area and 13 in the 200 West Area. Waste sites that have a completed performance assessment (PA) or past-leak analysis were not included as sources of radionuclides. Instead the vadose zone to groundwater transfer rates of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Integrated Disposal Facility, US Ecology, and Waste Management Area C (WMA C) PAs and the past-leak analysis for WMA C were used as direct input to the P2R model. Each of the vadose zone models is documented in separate environmental calculation files (ECFs). This ECF describes the B-3A/B Ponds model. The scope of this ECF is to document the development and results of the B-3 A/B Ponds vadose zone model. CP-63515, Model Package Report: Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models, describes the approach, assumptions, process of determining the number of models required and domain of each model, input data, and processing common to all the models.

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

Idaho National Laboratory Integrated Multisite SSHAC Level 3: Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment

The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) resides on the eastern Snake River Plain (ESRP), part of the Snake River Plain (SRP) with a complex origin and geologic history of volcanism. Much of the Quaternary (last 2.58 million years) volcanism within 400 km of INL is genetically associated with a major thermal anomaly referred to as the Yellowstone hotspot, which is currently located more than 180 km northeast of INL. Near INL, local volcanic sources include silicic domes near its southern border, and numerous dike-fed basaltic vents of the ESRP, some of which are near or within the INL boundaries. Quantitative probabilistic assessments of screened-in volcanic hazardous phenomena for nine different facility complexes at the INL are presented for a Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 (SL3) study. The comprehensive, integrated multisite SSHAC study consists of a single regional Probabilistic Volcanic Hazards Assessment (PVHA) that pertains to all nine INL facility complexes, with site-specific information developed at each respective area of interest (AOI), referred to as the "INL facility AOI" (Figure ES-1). Hazard products are generated for specified INL facility AOIs for use by multiple stakeholders from different agencies in risk-informed decision-making regarding site selection, operations, and design of nuclear facilities at INL, consistent with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory guidance. The study also serves as the basis for future periodic safety assessments required for existing DOE facilities, such as 10-year evaluations of natural-phenomena hazards. Elements of the INL PVHA including initial characterization, screening, quantitative assessments of eruption and hazard potential, and consideration of facility needs are conducted using the three phases of the SSHAC process: evaluation, integration, and documentation. As per regulatory guidance, the SSHAC framework provided the necessary processes and procedures for the PVHA Technical Integration (TI) team, at three workshops, five formal working meetings and many TI team remote meetings, to conduct initial characterization, screen the volcanic hazards, create PVHA model inputs, exercise those models in the PVHA, consider facility-specific volcanic hazard needs, and perform final hazard calculations. The Participatory Peer Review Panel (PPRP) provided independent oversight and performed process and technical reviews of the PVHA throughout its duration. The study included an extensive New Data Collection and Analyses (NDCA) program developed by the PVHA TI team to reduce uncertainties in hazard-significant elements in the PVHA model. NDCA activities generated 20 reports providing important contributory datasets and results to the project database for characterizing the ESRP. For example, a report compiling the dimensions of ESRP shield volcanoes and lava fields was used to construct volcanic footprints (areas of impact), was compared with data from INL subsurface cores, and was used to validate the results of lava-flow inundation modeling on the contemporary terrain. Another example is the acquisition of aeromagnetic data over INL and its surrounding area, with maps of buried magmatic features (e.g., subsurface volcanoes and swarms of feeder dikes) that informed the PVHA conceptual model of volcanism. The SSHAC evaluation process was used to conduct all elements of the PVHA including initial characterization and screening. Existing data and NDCA activities provided the foundation to develop the tectonomagmatic conceptual model of volcanism for the region of geographical interest in the SRP and Yellowstone hotspot volcanic system, and for considering volcanoes in the western US. Considering Quaternary volcanic sources active during this period, the screening approach identified and evaluated magma compositions, types of eruptive and intrusive phenomena, types of hazardous phenomena, and proximity of sources to INL. The PVHA TI team evaluated 18 types of magmatic sources in terms of 20 potentially hazardous phenomena, resulting in 360 screening decisions. The screening process resulted in 140 screened-in hazardous volcanic phenomena for Quaternary volcanic sources 1) proximal to INL facility complexes in the ESRP (64 basaltic and 54 silicic), 2) regional sources associated with the Yellowstone caldera system and Blackfoot Reservoir volcanic field (7), and 3) more distal sources from thirteen Cascade volcanoes and two volcanoes at Long Valley caldera (CA).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

FY 2026 Midyear Report: Seismic Monitoring of Underground Vibration Sources Using Distributed Acoustic Sensing and Seismometers

Safeguards-relevant temporal changes in underground facilities can be observed using geophysical monitoring techniques. Seismic waves, in particular, provide valuable insights into subsurface activities and can serve as an important tool for detecting anomalous events that may indicate containment breaches at geological repositories. This midyear report summarizes ongoing efforts to automatically and rapidly detect and locate anomalous vibration signals that could be indicative of potential containment breaches. Previous work during FY25 focused on compiling continuous seismic datasets from two underground sites and developing a database of continuous waveforms and ground-truth event data derived from multiple sensing modalities. Building on this foundation, we are adapting anomaly detection and geolocation algorithms to explore methods for monitoring underground activities using two relatively low-maintenance sensing technologies: a dense surface geophone array deployed at the Pleasant Gap mine in Pennsylvania, and a three-dimensional fiber-optic cable array for distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) installed in the subsurface at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) in South Dakota. This report summarizes work conducted during the first two quarters of FY26, during which we refined a dynamic power spectral density (PSD)-based detector, applied it independently to each geophone station, and then combined the per‑station detections with density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) to cluster events and produce spatial maps over a nine‑day interval. In addition, we outline plans for a field trial at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico to compare traditional seismic monitoring approaches with DAS techniques and to evaluate the benefits of combined data analysis. Activities during the past two quarters have included the preparation and submission of a Field Test Plan to WIPP for approval, as well as submission to headquarters for review and feedback.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost Estimates

Technology readiness levels (TRLs) of electrolysis systems have dramatically increased in recent years as the interest in clean hydrogen production and decarbonization of transportation, industrial and other sectors increases across the globe. This is especially true of high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) / solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) systems which show promise of much higher system efficiencies than other more developed electrolysis technologies. This possibility of higher efficiencies of HTSE / SOEC systems has been previously assumed to be theoretically possible but in recent years it has become less theoretical and more realistic as an increasing amount of suppliers complete lab and pilot tests showing very promising results. Research in the areas of manufacturing techniques, material selection, electrode and electrolyte compositions, and balance of plant size and integration continues at a fast pace as an increasing number of suppliers both internationally and domestically become involved. The advantages of HTSE become more pronounced when HTSE is coupled with nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is because thermal energy produced by the nuclear reactor can be used in a series of heat transfer loops and heat exchangers to vaporize HTSE feedwater, which drastically improves the economics of the process. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has been very involved in the research and modeling of HTSE systems for a number of years, in collaboration with other national laboratories, academia, and industry stakeholders both on the hydrogen production as well as the hydrogen demand side. The modeling completed over the years on a large variety of projects has led to a wealth of knowledge at INL including in the area of the technoeconomic assessment (TEA) of HTSE systems. TEAs include process modeling of the HTSE systems to calculate system energy requirements and equipment sizing, followed by estimation of capital and operating costs to enable calculation of the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). The TEA work performed has produced incremental improvements and tuning of the methods, assumptions, models, and results of the analyses as well as providing some opportunities for validating these results. The purpose of this document is to record the current baseline HTSE analyses led by INL to show the current status of assumptions and costs of these systems. Given the rapid development of this technology, the variety of suppliers entering the space, and the increasing attention government and industry are giving to such systems, this document may be updated on a periodic basis with updated analysis and assumptions. This document compiles various analyses results and approaches completed over a period of years into a single document to be used as a baseline going forward. It represents what the INL HTSE analysis group assumes to be the internal best estimate of the current operation, costs, and landscape of the HTSE industry state of the art capability for current SOEC technology in an Nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK) plant, which in this study is defined as existence of the manufacturing capacity to support previous deployment of N = 100 count of 25 MWe modular HTSE blocks (with modular equipment component cost reductions specified as following a 95% learning curve). That said, This is a public document and as such so no proprietary data was used or included in this report. There may be HTSE suppliers that have performance specifications, and cost estimates, and test data that differ from the analysis presented in this document. This document is meant to be a best conservative estimate of the technology and not an absolute reference.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

High Temperature Steam Electrolysis Process Performance and Cost Estimates - DOE Hydrogen Program AMR Presentation

Technology readiness levels (TRLs) of electrolysis systems have dramatically increased in recent years as the interest in clean hydrogen production and decarbonization of transportation, industrial and other sectors increases across the globe. This is especially true of high temperature steam electrolysis (HTSE) / solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC) systems which show promise of much higher system efficiencies than other more developed electrolysis technologies. This possibility of higher efficiencies of HTSE / SOEC systems has been previously assumed to be theoretically possible but in recent years it has become less theoretical and more realistic as an increasing amount of suppliers complete lab and pilot tests showing very promising results. Research in the areas of manufacturing techniques, material selection, electrode and electrolyte compositions, and balance of plant size and integration continues at a fast pace as an increasing number of suppliers both internationally and domestically become involved. The advantages of HTSE become more pronounced when HTSE is coupled with nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is because thermal energy produced by the nuclear reactor can be used in a series of heat transfer loops and heat exchangers to vaporize HTSE feedwater, which drastically improves the economics of the process. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has been very involved in the research and modeling of HTSE systems for a number of years, in collaboration with other national laboratories, academia, and industry stakeholders both on the hydrogen production as well as the hydrogen demand side. The modeling completed over the years on a large variety of projects has led to a wealth of knowledge at INL including in the area of the technoeconomic assessment (TEA) of HTSE systems. TEAs include process modeling of the HTSE systems to calculate system energy requirements and equipment sizing, followed by estimation of capital and operating costs to enable calculation of the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH). The TEA work performed has produced incremental improvements and tuning of the methods, assumptions, models, and results of the analyses as well as providing some opportunities for validating these results. The purpose of this document is to record the current baseline HTSE analyses led by INL to show the current status of assumptions and costs of these systems. Given the rapid development of this technology, the variety of suppliers entering the space, and the increasing attention government and industry are giving to such systems, this document may be updated on a periodic basis with updated analysis and assumptions. This document compiles various analyses results and approaches completed over a period of years into a single document to be used as a baseline going forward. It represents what the INL HTSE analysis group assumes to be the internal best estimate of the current operation, costs, and landscape of the HTSE industry state of the art capability for current SOEC technology in an Nth-of-a-Kind (NOAK) plant, which in this study is defined as existence of the manufacturing capacity to support previous deployment of N = 100 count of 25 MWe modular HTSE blocks (with modular equipment component cost reductions specified as following a 95% learning curve). That said, this is a public document and as such so no proprietary data was used or included in this report. There may be HTSE suppliers that have performance specifications, and cost estimates, and test data that differ from the analysis presented in this document. This document is meant to be a best conservative estimate of the technology and not an absolute reference.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Initial Efforts Organizing WPNCS SG-8: Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks

The Working Party on Nuclear Criticality Safety (WPNCS) under the guidance of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has over 20 years of experience addressing concerns related to static and transient configurations encountered within the nuclear fuel cycle: fuel fabrication, transportation, reprocessing, storage, and geological disposal. One of the cornerstone activities of the WPNCS is the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP), which was established to identify a comprehensive set of criticality benchmark data, evaluate the data, including quantification of overall uncertainties; compile the data into a standardized format, perform sample calculations utilizing modern nuclear data sets and codes utilized in nuclear criticality safety, and formally document the work into a single source of verified benchmark data. Annually, members of the ICSBEP Technical Review Group (TRG) contribute evaluated benchmark data that undergoes comprehensive technical review prior to publication in the ICSBEP Handbook. In the years since the ICSBEP was established, there has been much work to prepare benchmark data to support validation activities in nuclear criticality safety. The 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook contains acceptable benchmark specifications for 5,053 critical, subcritical, or near-critical configurations in 582 benchmark evaluations. Modern benchmark development benefits from decades of experienced international participants, a well-established handbook format, supplementary guides to deal with uncertainty quantification, and a comprehensive review process based upon independent reviews from international experts. The ICSBEP Handbook also contains 838 configurations deemed unacceptable to support criticality safety efforts. They are recorded, with the reasoning for their rejection, to preserve the experimental data, prevent reevaluation of data that are incomplete or contain known errors, and/or to potentially allow future reevaluation of the experiment pending the identification of sufficient data to resolve identified inconsistencies and errors. Users of the ICSBEP Handbook today might notice that the rigor and quality of modern criticality safety benchmarks is much greater than those prepared within the initial decade of the project. Benchmarks with 1s uncertainties in k eff greater than 1% were traditionally rejected unless they were identified as unique experiment types that encompassed materials, fuels, or designs not available from other benchmark experiments. However, benchmarks developed using modern experimental techniques and practices typically have uncertainties on the order of a few tenths of a percent. There have been ongoing efforts to improve the overall quality of previously published benchmark evaluations. Seventy-eight evaluations, containing approximately 600 configurations, have been revised just within the past decade. An additional eleven benchmarks are under revision for updated release in the 2020 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook. If some of the historic benchmarks were resubmitted in their current form to the TRG today, they would be rejected due to lack of data, missing components in the uncertainty analysis, or incomplete benchmark model development. The use of historic criticality safety benchmarks that underestimate the total uncertainty, lack properly quantified biases, or provide inadequate benchmark specifications do not sufficiently support modern criticality safety and nuclear data efforts. Although the ICSBEP Handbook is recognized by regulating bodies to support criticality safety, users are required to justify their reasons to ignore historic benchmark data and include additional safety margins within their designs. Discussions were held at the WPNCS 23rd Annual Meeting in September 2019 regarding the aforementioned issues. The resultant decision was to establish Subgroup 8 (SG-8): Preservation of Expert Knowledge and Judgement Applied to Criticality Benchmarks. The current activities of SG-8 are discussed herein.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

FLASSH 1.0: Thermal scattering law evaluation and cross section generation for reactor physics applications

The Full Law Analysis Scattering System Hub (FLASSH) is a modern, advanced code which evaluates the thermal scattering law (TSL) along with accompanying cross sections. FLASSH features generalized methods which accommodate any material structure. Historical approximations including the incoherent and cubic approximations have been removed. Instead, the latest release of FLASSH features advanced physics options including distinct corrections (1-phonon contributions) and non-cubic formulations. The non-cubic elastic and inelastic contributions are necessary to accurately evaluate 1-phonon contributions. Both non-cubic and 1-phonon calculations require high-density sampling of the various scattering directions. Optimization and parallelization of these routines were therefore necessary to produce results in a reasonable timeframe. With these notable improvements to the generalized TSL, FLASSH 1.0 meets benchmark requirements, demonstrating noticeable agreement with experiment for both TSLs and the resulting integrated cross sections. Additional features including a graphical user interface (GUI), plotting diagnostics, and formatted output options including ACE files allow users to complete a TSL evaluation with minimal input and maximum flexibility. The user GUI creates input files for FLASSH, reducing user error and also providing built-in error checks. Autofill options and suggested input values help make TSL evaluation accessible to novice users. The FLASSH code is compiled to run on both Windows and Linux platforms with automatic parallelization. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Extended dark energy analysis using DESI DR2 BAO measurements

We conduct an extended analysis of dark energy constraints, in support of the findings of the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) second data release cosmology key paper, including DESI data, Planck cosmic microwave background observations, and three different supernova compilations. Using a broad range of parametric and nonparametric methods, we explore the dark energy phenomenology and find consistent trends across all approaches, in good agreement with the 𝑤 0⁢ 𝑤 𝑎⁢ CDM (cold dark matter) key paper results. Even with the additional flexibility introduced by nonparametric approaches, such as binning and Gaussian processes, we find that extending Λ⁢ CDM to include a two-parameter 𝑤⁡(𝑧) is sufficient to capture the trends present in the data. Finally, we examine three dark energy classes with distinct dynamics, including quintessence scenarios satisfying 𝑤 ≥ −1, to explore what underlying physics can explain such deviations. The current data indicate a clear preference for models that feature a phantom crossing; although alternatives lacking this feature are disfavored, they cannot yet be ruled out. Our analysis confirms that the evidence for dynamical dark energy, particularly at low redshift (𝑧 ≲ 0.3), is robust and stable under different modeling choices.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sensitive Resources Assessment and Forest Analysis for the Proposed Versatile Test Reactor, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

The US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a leading institution in advanced materials, supercomputing, neutrons, and nuclear science. As a research laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for DOE, ORNL has national priorities in energy, security, and scientific discovery that necessitate facility improvements and expansions. DOE is also committed to environmental stewardship. The laboratory is located on the ~32,000-acre (~13,000-ha) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), much of which is categorized as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP) and a state Wildlife Management Area. DOE works with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of Agriculture, and other agencies to serve as an effective steward of the ORR. Accordingly, project managers must conform to environmental regulations, agreements, and policies at the federal, state, and institutional levels. Per 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1508.14, potential effects on research and science education also represent potential effects of federal actions on the NERP, and impacts on, e.g., deer harvest, must be considered on the Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area when other aspects of the human environment are affected. The United States currently has no fast neutron testing capability to support advanced nuclear research and development. The proposed Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) will take advantage of current investments by the US government and private industry in nuclear reactors to expedite the design and construction process, using proven technology to create a world-class scientific infrastructure. The VTR will take advantage of fast neutrons provided by this proven technology, along with a capability to rapidly insert, conduct, and remove state-of-the-art experiments. An advantage of the VTR is that it can support future innovations in experimental capabilities without modifying the facility. The VTR will support progress in a variety of science and technology areas, including testing and qualification of advanced reactor fuels; testing and qualification of innovative structural materials; testing of innovative components and instruments; validation of advanced modeling and simulation tools; and versatility for future technical missions. Through proven technology, the VTR can take advantage of existing reactor designs and operating experience to reduce the risk, cost, and time for design and construction. The top available resources of DOE laboratories, industry, and universities will be used to expedite reactor design and construction toward developing the scientific infrastructure that affords a strong testing capability that can be sustained over many years. This report summarizes current knowledge of natural and cultural resources primarily within the VTR construction area. At the time of this report, the proposed VTR site design includes a construction area of ~150.4 acres (~69.9 ha), which contains an ~51.3-acre (~20.8-ha) operations area, located within forested natural areas of the ORR. The primary goal of the work presented here was to evaluate potential effects on sensitive resources that might result from development and construction activities associated with VTR. In addition to on-the-ground surveys during spring and summer 2020 by the ORNL Natural Resources Management Program and Aquatic Ecology Group staff, this report makes use of historical (pre-1995) and contemporary (1995 to present) data from additional confirmed sources (e.g., TDEC). Likewise, forest conditions were compiled from a 2011 forest inventory and supplemented with limited ground observations in 2020. The individuals who obtained and compiled the data presented here are familiar with and routinely assess sensitive resources on the ORR. Anyone who references this report must consider that the timing of surveys did not permit a complete delineation of the resources that will be affected. If the VTR project proceeds, additional surveys will be required to account for the seasonal patterns of various threatened and endangered species. Data deficiencies and potential resources that likely went undetected are indicated where possible. Accordingly, this report should facilitate more environmentally sound decisions during planning and 2 development of the VTR site, provide a foundation for further assessment of sensitive and cultural resources, and help project managers better address regulatory guidance and DOE policies on sustainable development in compliance with, for example, the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Tennessee Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1985, Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974, several federal and state regulations regarding aquatic resource protection, and site-specific policies as outlined in various ORR management plans developed by ORNL and TWRA for DOE.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗