Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Nuclear Regulatory Commission”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sister Rod Destructive Examinations (FY23) Appendix F: Cyclic Integrated Reversible-Bending Fatigue Tests

Spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies must be shipped to other sites for processing and disposal. During shipment, the fuel is typically oriented horizontally, and the fuel rods are subject to periodic alternating loads related to the movement of the vehicle that results in alternating bending of the SNF fuel rods. The number of bending cycles is related to the length of the shipping route, with longer routes producing more cycles. Because it is well-known that cyclic loads can produce failures, even when the stress and strain imposed are below the material’s yield point, investigation of the SNF’s fatigue behavior is prudent. This report discusses the results of fatigue testing conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) using the Cyclic Integrated Reversible-Bending Fatigue Tester (CIRFT) created by the US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy for the High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project and its sister rods. The results of the tests are compared with results obtained over the last decade using the same CIRFT for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

SCALE Demonstration for Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Fuel Cycle Analysis

In support of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission non-light-water reactor fuel cycle demonstration project, SCALE 6.3.1 capabilities for radionuclide characterization, criticality, and shielding were demonstrated for scenarios in the sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) nuclear fuel cycle. Three postulated accident scenarios were selected for analysis in this work. As a basis for all scenarios, irradiated fuel inventories were generated using SCALE/ORIGAMI. To cover multiple SFR design choices, two different types of SFR fuel, uranium/transuranic-loaded and U-based fuels, were considered. For the first scenario, SCALE/MAVRIC was used to calculate the radiation shielding and dose rates inside and outside of the containment building due to a drop of a spent fuel assembly from the fuel-handling system during unloading inside the containment building. For the second scenario, potential critical configurations in an electrofiner were investigated through criticality calculations with SCALE/CSAS. For the third scenario, the activity of the waste salt from an electrorefiner was evaluated using SCALE/ORIGEN. The dose rate produced by the analyzed SFR assemblies is similar to that produced by a typical pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuel assembly with a discharge burnup of 50 GWd/MTU, with the same cooling time of 10 days. The criticality analyses suggested that the different electrorefiner configurations have a large margin to criticality. The activity analysis of the electrofiner waste revealed that shielding and cooling may be required for the waste salt that contains transuranics and fission products produced by the electrorefiner because of the high activity of the waste salt. In general, the application of various capabilities in the SCALE code system for SFR fuel inventory generation, criticality, and shielding was successfully demonstrated for the selected scenarios in the SFR nuclear fuel cycle. Additional analyses can be performed to provide more accurate results when more details of the SFR nuclear fuel cycles are available, for example, the dimension of the electrorefiner and the salt compositions during reprocessing.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Updated General Aviation Non-Airport Crash Density Values Using Data Obtained from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board for 2000 through 2019

This report documents the calculation of the General Aviation (GA) non-airport crash density for Department of Energy (DOE) sites and power generating facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) using the methodology outlined in DOE-STD-3014-2006, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash Into Hazardous Facilities. The results of this report will be used by the American Nuclear Society (ANS) for the development of ANS standard 2.36, Accident Analysis for Aircraft Crash into Reactor and Nonreactor Nuclear Facilities.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Treatment of uncertainties for security-related design aspects of advanced reactors when using a risk-informed licensing approach

Sabotage of nuclear plants and theft of special nuclear material are different from many other issues potentially affecting public health and safety, and some of those differences drive the content of the present report. A high-level indication of these differences is provided in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Safety Goal Policy. Promulgated in the mid-1980’s, when it had become reasonably clear that risk analysis had improved to the point where it was possible to understand the risks associated with plant operation, the Safety Goal Policy articulates qualitative safety goals and quantitative health objectives that are meant to guide regulatory and risk management activities, with the following key exceptions noted in the original policy statement: The possible effects of sabotage or diversion of nuclear material are also not presently included in the safety goals. At present there is no basis on which to provide a measure of risk on these matters. It is the Commission’s intention that everything that is needed will be done to keep these types of risks at their present very low level; and it is the Commission’s expectation that efforts on this point will continue to be successful. With these exceptions, it is the Commission’s intent that the risks from all the various initiating mechanisms be considered to the best of the capability of current evaluation techniques. The present report discusses extensions of classical risk management to address some of the special issues that arise in the context of security. Although the present emphasis is on physical security, some attention will be paid to cyber security. A particular focus of the report is on quantitative framework to manage and address uncertainties. This framework is demonstrated via a couple of hypothetical examples.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2024

Nuclear Safety System Cybersecurity Panel Summary

The panel discussion titled "Innovations in Advanced Cybersecurity Technologies for Safety Systems Within Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs)" took place at the American Nuclear Society (ANS) Annual Meeting in Las Vegas on Tuesday, June 18, 2024. The session was moderated by Lee Maccarone of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and featured four experts: Benjamin Karch from Sandia National Laboratories, Ismael Garcia from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Trevor Taylor from Paragon Energy Solutions (ES), and Forrest Shriver from Sentinel Devices.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

SCALE Analyses of Scenarios in the Molten Salt Reactor Fuel Cycle

In support of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission non-light-water reactor fuel cycle demonstration project, the capabilities of SCALE 6.3.1 for radionuclide characterization, criticality, and shielding were demonstrated through several scenarios in a molten salt reactor (MSR) nuclear fuel cycle. Three scenarios were selected for this study, with the molten salt breeder reactor (MSBR) serving as the reference design. The original thorium-based fuel salt used in MSBR was replaced with a 235 U-enriched fuel salt to better reflect anticipated future MSR concepts. The first scenario focused on the fuel salt preparation stage. Criticality analyses, using SCALE/CSAS-Shift and SCALE/SAMPLER, examined potential critical configurations in the fresh fuel salt container based on variables such as 235 U enrichment, UF 4 molar fraction, temperature, and container geometry. The second scenario explored the release of fission products during reactor operation in which the tritium buildup in the primary fuel salt was quantified through depletion calculations using SCALE/TRITON with continuous fuel makeup and fractional fission product removal. This scenario also assessed radioactivity levels in the off-gas system (OGS), quantifying radiotoxic nuclides that could be released into the environment. SCALE/SAMPLER was employed to perform uncertainty quantification to identify key operating parameters influencing the buildup of radiotoxic nuclides in the OGS. Additionally, radiation dose rates were calculated using SCALE/MAVRIC to estimate the maximum exposure levels within the reactor cell complex during operation. The final scenario evaluated the decay heat and radioactivity of the primary fuel salt collected in the drain tank, as well as the radiation dose rate outside the building from the presence of the drain tank. Overall, the application of SCALE’s various capabilities for radionuclide inventory generation, criticality analysis, and shielding in MSR fuel cycles was successfully demonstrated across these scenarios.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

DOE-ART HT(G)R R&D Overview

The US Government currently has no plans to finance or build advanced nuclear reactors. Instead, the DOE performs research and development to raise the technological readiness of new concepts, fuels and component materials so that private industrial partners are more likely to design and build plants. Develop technologies that can enable new concepts and designs to achieve greater levels of safety and resilience, flexibility of use, sustainability and construction or operational affordability. Collaborate with industry to identify and conduct essential research to reduce technical risk associated with advanced reactor technologies. Sustain essential technical expertise and capabilities within national laboratories, universities, and industry to perform needed research. Collaborate with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Standards Developing Organizations (ASME, ANS, ANSI, etc.) to address gaps in codes and standards to support advanced reactor designs

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of AI-Enabled Digital Documented Safety Analysis: A Case Study

Safety basis documentation development and review under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) authorization have emerged as critical constraint throttling deployment of advanced nuclear reactors, with traditional processes demanding extraordinary resource investment that delays the delivery of these technologies. Traditional Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) processes rely on static documents with limited traceability [U.S. DOE]. The regulatory review and engagement processes are similarly constrained, often requiring significant effort and extensive manual verification. The scale of this challenge is exemplified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review of the NuScale application, which required over 250,000 staff hours and the evaluation of approximately two million pages of documentation [Bergman 2021]. The volume and complexity of information within nuclear licensing applications or authorization reviews demands innovative approaches to document generation and data management.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

How the NRC modernized its digital I&C infrastructure and where it goes from here

The NRC first formally developed infrastructure for the review of digital instrumentation and control (I&C) systems in the 1990’s. Although, the current U.S. fleet of nuclear power plants were originally designed and constructed with analog systems, the U.S. nuclear industry has for more that thirty years been working to upgrade these older systems with modern digital systems. Digital systems have many advantages but also pose different engineering challenges and need to be reviewed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in a different way. Because of this the NRC started looking at its regulatory infrastructure to see if changes needed be made to support the expanded safe use of digital systems in nuclear power plants. Several efforts in the 1990’s included a review by the National Academies’ National Research Council, a review of the impact of potential new digital systems by the NRC staff as a result of advanced reactor designs and the NRC staff’s update to the I&C section of the Standard Review Plan (SRP) (Ref 1).

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Industry-Average Performance for Components and Initiating Events at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants: 2020 Update

This report documents the quantitative results of the current industry-average performance for components and initiating events (IEs) at U.S. commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs). It represents the third update of the original analysis in NUREG/CR-6928 with data through 2020. Continuous characterization and updating of current industry-average performance with the latest industry data available are important steps in maintaining up-to-date risk models. Typically, data from 1998–2002 were used in NUREG/CR-6928, data from 1998–2010 in the first update, data from 1998–2015 in the second update, and data from 2006–2020 in this update, although many IEs required longer periods for adequate characterization of frequencies in all these analyses. As with NUREG/CR-6928 and previous updates, four types of events are covered in this report: component unreliability (e.g., a pump that fails to start or fails to run), component or train unavailability resulting from test or maintenance outages, special event probabilities covering operational issues (e.g., pump restarts and injection valve re-openings during unplanned demands), and IE frequencies. Results (in the form of beta distributions for failure probabilities upon demand and gamma distributions for rates) are used as inputs to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission standardized plant analysis risk models covering U.S. commercial NPPs.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Development of Dry Cask Risk Tools

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has repeatedly expressed a desire to increase the use of risk in its decision-making. The Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) Policy Statement published in 1995 formalized the Commission’s commitment to risk-informed regulation through the expanded use of PRA. While a great deal of work has been done to incorporate risk insights into the regulatory framework for at-power nuclear reactors. Far less progress has been made to risk inform the dry-casks and nuclear waste transportation areas of the nuclear fuel cycle. INL was tasked with incorporating the information from the two completed dry cask PRAs as well as any additional available information into a tool that helps the NRC use those insights to identify levels of risk at various stages in the nuclear waste cycle. The first task was to address the License Amendment Request (LAR) Process for Dry Cask storage, the second task is for the incorporate transportation into the tool, and the third and final task will be incorporate any additional regulatory applications for dry cask storage. This report covers the first task of the tool and will eventually incorporate the remaining two tasks may be completed in the future and built off the model described here. Task 1 specifically asked to incorporate the risk insights into the process for determining and prioritizing review of license amendment changes related to storage applications by outlining a resource allocation strategy and defining recommendations of for the depth and breadth of the LAR review. It was requested that the tool be similar in design to the SDP notebooks/worksheets and contain quantitative, qualitative, or semi-quantitative approaches to assessing the risk of the change. The final tool that was selected by INL to be developed was a flowchart and associated rationale document that allows the reviewer to quickly assess potential LAR changes and their associated risks as well as the rationale behind the risk categorization. This risk categorization will lead to specific actionable recommendations to expect from a change of that specific category. This allows for a more consistent review process as well as improving the overall efficiency of the review itself.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2020

Proposal to use the DOE-STD-3009-2014 Methodology to Prepare the Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for Research Reactor Nuclear Facilities

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) personnel operate a low power research reactor (the Annular Core Research Reactor, or ACRR), and a zero-power critical experiment assembly referred to as CX. In accordance with 10 CFR 830, Subpart B, Appendix A, the acceptable methodology for developing a Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for DOE nuclear reactors is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) Regulatory Guide 1.70 (RG 1.70). RG 1.70 does not address certain areas required by 10 CFR 830 and expected by DOE (e.g., full facility hazard analysis).Thus, the current DSAs for SNL’s reactor nuclear facilities are based on RG 1.70, but also of necessity supplemented by DOE-STD-3009-94 methods. SNL personnel, in consultation with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Sandia Field Office (SFO), have concluded that an alternate methodology is preferred to RG 1.70. The details of the proposal, and the reasons motivating its development, are discussed in the order described below. The proposed alternate methodology will be applicable to the ACRR and the CX (i.e., it will be applicable to nuclear facilities in which a reactor and/or a critical assembly will be operated).

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Non-LWR Fuel Cycle Scenarios for SCALE and MELCOR Modeling Capability Demonstration

To assess the modeling and simulation capabilities for radionuclide characterization, criticality, and shielding in the nuclear fuel cycle of non-light–water reactor (LWR) technologies, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) initiated a collaborative project between the NRC, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) with the goal to demonstrate capabilities of MELCOR and SCALE to calculate accident scenarios in all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle for relevant non-LWRs. The first project task was to develop representative nuclear fuel cycles and identify potential hazards and accident scenarios in the individual fuel cycle stages based on publicly available information. Because the nuclear fuel cycle is not established for any non-LWR concept, many assumptions were made, and it is anticipated that the details of the fuel cycles will eventually look different.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

BWR Spent Nuclear Fuel Acquisition and Testing to Support DOE-NE High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project

The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition (SFWD) within the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) established the Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) campaign to conduct research and development (R&D) activities related to the storage, transportation, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste. The SFWST program was created within SFWD to address issues of extended or long-term SNF storage and transportation. Some near-term objectives of SFWST are to use a science-based, engineering-driven approach to: Support the enhancement of the technical bases to support the continued safe and secure dry storage of SNF for extended periods; Support the enhancement of the technical bases for retrieving SNF after extended dry storage; Support the enhancement of the technical bases for transporting high burnup (HBU) fuel and transporting low burnup fuel and HBU fuel after dry storage DOE-NE, in partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute, developed the High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project to perform a large-scale demonstration and laboratory-scale testing of HBU pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuels (exceeding 45 gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium [GWd/MTU]). Under this project, 25 sister rods—which are rods that have the same design, power histories, and other characteristics—were removed from assemblies at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station and sent to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in January 2016. ORNL performed detailed nondestructive examination (NDE) on all 25 rods. The NDE consisted of visual examinations, gamma and neutron scanning, profilometry and rod length measurements, and eddy current examinations. After completing the NDE, 10 of the sister rods were delivered to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in a NAC International, Inc. legal-weight truck cask in September 2018 for destructive examination (DE). To date, SFWD work has focused on the PWR fuel that is part of the Sister Rod Test program. No boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel has been tested in the program, and the data needs that were identified for the PWR fuel have not been collected for BWR fuel. The goal to obtain six to nine BWR rods and test them at ORNL will support closing this important data gap. BWR fuel comprises approximately 56% of the total fuel assemblies currently in storage at nuclear power plants in the United States. BWR nuclear fuel and cladding designs and manufacturing are significantly different from PWRs. Differences include the following: BWR fuel pellets are larger than PWR pellets; Variations of Zircaloy-2 (including liners) are used instead of the Zircaloy-4 cladding materials used in PWRs; Clad manufacturing and stress-relief processes are different between PWRs and BWRs; The fuel rod dimensions are different because larger rod diameters and thicker cladding are used in BWRs; BWR fuel typically has lower internal rod pressures and sees vastly different operating conditions than PWR fuel (i.e., two-phase flow); BWR assemblies are “canned,” meaning each assembly is surrounded by a metal fuel channel; BWR cladding is often composed of an inner pure Zr liner that has widely different mechanical properties than the Zircaloy-2 alloy and exhibits a stronger affinity for hydrogen; The BWR SNF generally has more total hydrogen in the cladding/liner than typical PWR fuel; The construction of the PWR and BWR assemblies is vastly different; BWR rods are solidly attached to the assembly nozzles and experience a much different vibration and shock load than PWR rods, which are “floating” within a grid system attached to guide tubes, and the rods sit loosely on the bottom end plates. These numerous differences will affect the way the BWR SNF responds under dry storage preparation processes (e.g., vacuum drying) and during transportation. The results collected in the PWR experimental program must be compared with a subset of similar data collected on BWR SNF to establish a technical basis for whether the larger PWR database is sufficient to bound the BWR SNF end-of-life conditions as is currently assumed for several fuel/clad properties. Changes that occur in both fuel types at HBU could exacerbate any mechanical property differences. As the fuel burnup increases, several changes occur that might affect the performance of the fuel, cladding, and assembly hardware in storage and transportation. These changes include increased cladding corrosion layer thickness, increased cladding hydrogen content, increased cladding creep strains, increased fission gas release, and the formation of the HBU structure at the surface of the fuel pellets. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits the current maximum rod-averaged burnup to 62 GWd/MTU due to these changes and the lack of data at higher burnups.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

U-50Zr Microstructure and Property Assessment for LWR Applications

This project provides an initial assessment and research recommendations of U-50 wt.%Zr (U-50Zr) for its use as a light water reactor (LWR) fuel. This work based on the outcome of a recently funded exercise on the failure mode effects and analysis (FMEA) and the phenomena identification and ranking table (PIRT) to investigate high level nuclear fuel qualification metrics as derived by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2018

Modeling the Risk of U.S. Offshore Oil & Gas Exploration-Well Drilling, Commercial Nuclear Plants, and Human Spaceflight

Nuclear power, offshore oil & gas exploration, and human spaceflight all have high consequence potential if something goes wrong. Each has had at least one major incident that pointed to a need for improved risk assessment. Careful risk analysis is very important for technologies having complexity, uncertainty, and high consequence potential. All rely on multiple barriers/controls/redundancy to minimize risk. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has moved towards risk informed regulation with Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) as a major input.

PRA↗
DOE OSTI2025

AMMT-Regulatory Development Collaboration Scoping Project

This project was initiated by the Regulatory Development (RD) Program to identify potential collaborations in work scope between the Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) Program and the Regulatory Development Program. During Fiscal Year 2025, RD Program staff met with members of the AMMT Program, including the national technical director and multiple technical area leads to discuss ongoing work and areas where regulatory interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would increase the efficiency to get new materials and manufacturing technologies approved for industry use. RD staff would like to thank the AMMT staff for their participation in these interactions to identify areas of potential collaboration.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗