Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Programming”

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 OSTI2018

Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program

High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program Reactor Safety Technologies Pathway Technical Program Plan

In the aftermath of the March 2011 multi-unit accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant (Fukushima), the nuclear community has been reassessing certain safety assumptions about nuclear reactor plant design, operations and emergency actions, particularly with respect to extreme events that might occur and that are beyond each plant’s current design basis. Because of our significant domestic investment in nuclear reactor technology (99 operating reactors in the fleet of commercial LWRs with five under construction), the United States has been a major leader internationally in these activities. The U.S. nuclear industry is voluntarily pursuing a number of additional safety initiatives. The NRC continues to evaluate and, where deemed appropriate, establish new requirements for ensuring adequate protection of public health and safety in the occurrence of low probability events at nuclear plants; (e.g., mitigation strategies for beyond design basis events initiated by external events like seismic or flooding initiators). The DOE has also played a major role in the U.S. response to the Fukushima accident. Initially, DOE worked with the Japanese and the international community to help develop a more complete understanding of the Fukushima accident progression and its consequences, and to respond to various safety concerns emerging from uncertainties about the nature of and the effects from the accident. DOE R&D activities are focused on providing scientific and technical insights, data, analyses methods that ultimately support industry efforts to enhance safety. These activities are expected to further enhance the safety performance of currently operating U.S. nuclear power plants as well as better characterize the safety performance of future U.S. plants. In pursuing this area of R&D, DOE recognizes that the commercial nuclear industry is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of licensed nuclear facilities. As such, industry is considered the primary “end user” of the results from this DOE-sponsored work. The response to the Fukushima accident has been global, and there is a continuing multinational interest in collaborations to better quantify accident consequences and to incorporate lessons learned from the accident. DOE will continue to seek opportunities to facilitate collaborations that are of value to the U.S. industry, particularly where the collaboration provides access to vital data from the accident or otherwise supports or leverages other important R&D work. The purpose of the Reactor Safety Technology R&D is to improve understanding of beyond design basis events and reduce uncertainty in severe accident progression, phenomenology, and outcomes using existing analytical codes and information gleaned from severe accidents, in particular the Fukushima Daiichi events. This information will be used to aid in developing mitigating strategies and improving severe accident management guidelines for the current light water reactor fleet.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program

High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program

High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program

High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Technical Program Plan for INL Advanced Reactor Technologies Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program

High-temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGRs) are graphite moderated nuclear reactors cooled with helium. Their high outlet temperatures and thermal energy conversion efficiency enable efficient and cost effective integration with non electricity generating applications. These applications include process heat and hydrogen production for petrochemical and other industrial processes that require operating temperatures between 300 and 900°C. HTGRs will supplement the use of premium fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, improve overall energy security in the United States by reducing dependence on foreign fuels, and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)/greenhouse gas emissions. The HTGR design uses helium as a coolant, graphite as a neutron moderator, and ceramic particle fuel. Helium is chemically inert and neutronically transparent. The graphite core slows down the neutrons, retains its strength at high temperatures, provides structural stability, and acts as a substantial heat sink during transient conditions. The ceramic particle fuel is extremely robust and retains the radioactive by products of the fission reaction within the coated particle under normal and off normal conditions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Microstructural Characterization of Irradiated Fuels and Materials for the United States High Performance Research Reactor Fuel Development Program and the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Program

In an effort to contribute to the development of advanced nuclear fuel for research reactors, monolithic and dispersion plate fuels will be examined to determine how irradiation parameters such as fission density, fission rate, and irradiation temperature, as well as mechanical parameters such as composition and fabrication, affect the final microstructure of the fuel, post irradiation. Electron Backscatter Detection (EBSD) analysis capabilities of irradiated materials will be developed as well as improvements on irradiated sample preparation in order to provide higher quality samples for SEM, FIB, and TEM. In addition, image analysis techniques developed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) will be employed to examine microstructural features such as fission product precipitates and fission gas bubbles. The main goals are to further develop EBSD capabilities on irradiated material; characterize microstructure of irradiated fuel to support qualification; develop a consistent, effective process for image analysis using INL developed software; and provide repeatable, statistically-confident, critically assessed data to further modeling efforts. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Final Scientific Findings Report- Hydro Research Foundation- Research Awards Program

The Research Awards Program was established in 2014 by the Hydro Research Foundation (Foundation) to support research efforts for the hydropower industry. Using the previously funded Fellowship Program that ran from 2010-2015, the Research Awards Program (RAP or program) captured the lessons learned from the Fellowship program and fine-tuned a nation-wide graduate level research program to support innovation, research and workforce development. The RAP was funded through a $2 million-dollar grant through the Department of Energy’s Water Power Program within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office (DOE). This award made possible, 33 research projects by 32 students from 21 universities in 11 states. The grant widely engaged the industry by providing the opportunity to work with 25 organizations as well as 63 students and advisors. The funded research focused on a topic list selected by industry and worked to cover a breadth of research needs across many disciplines, basins and types of hydropower issues. The funded work, answered pressing research needs in the fields of the following disciplines; civil engineering, mechanical engineering, environmental engineering, electrical engineering, geography, fisheries, wildlife, water resources, geology, energy science and materials innovation. The Foundation estimates that 116 individuals benefited from this research through either direct mentorship (42), research (32), overseeing the research (31), partnerships (7) and the day-to-day management of the program (4). This investment by DOE showcases how private-public partnerships can leverage limited funds to create a wide range of research products. The project objective was to build on the successful Fellowship Program to develop and execute the RAP on a national level. The program sought to provide competitively awarded hydropower-related graduate-level research awards. The intent of the RAP was to support beneficial, innovative research related to conventional or pumped-storage hydropower. It also sought to stimulate interest among students and universities in this research arena and provide students with a foundation for productive careers within the hydropower industry. The outcome was 33 research findings with 100% of proposed research completed. In addition, 87% of students chose to either join the hydropower industry or continue their hydropower related research at their universities. These research findings advanced the understanding of pressing research topics within the hydropower industry and met the objective of the funding. An ancillary benefit the program identified through this funding was, not only did 63 students and advisors work on hydropower within the academia space, but now there are more professors and students teaching hydropower at the university level. The program saw an addition of 12 new professors, teaching assistants, and graduate researchers continuing to simulate interest in hydropower. Another interesting outcome is that during this grant funding, the program saw alumni of the predecessor program, who are now professors, applying for the RAP with their students. A unique element of this funding is there was significant cost-share provided by host universities, who did not charge facilities and administration overhead to the student’s research awards. In addition, each university provided laboratories, computing capacity and research facilities to support the research which is extraordinarily unique to grant funding at the university level. The total cost share exceeded 30% of the total grant cost. The funding clearly reached many sectors of the industry to provide helpful work and continue building hydropower’s next generation of innovation and workforce. The Foundation has established a broad network of universities interested and engaged in hydropower. The work was supported by the hydropower industry through donations of meeting space, conference registrations, in-kind contributions, mentorship and support of students. The Foundation would recommend finding a vehicle to further advance programs like the graduate level research through competitions, competitively funded awards and student research. It will take many universities to advance hydropower’s most pressing challenges. To let a program like the RAP dwindle away would incapacitate research at universities.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Income Verification Strategies for Income-Based Solar Programs

The Inflation Reduction Act has created substantial new programs that support adoption of solar power by low-income households, including the $7 billion Solar For All program and the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program, which increases the investment tax credit for certain types of deployment. In addition, a growing number of states are using solar programs to reduce energy burdens and create energy justice opportunities for low-income households and disadvantaged communities. Verifying the income of participating customers is an important component of these programs. Program managers are seeking strategies to verify a large number of subscribing customers in an accurate, timely, and cost-efficient manner. To help inform program managers, Berkeley Lab investigated how a number of energy and non-energy programs manage income verification. The most common approach is to require proof through tax documents, pay stubs, or other formal income documentation, which can pose an impediment to enrolling eligible customers and create a paperwork burden for administrators. In order to reduce the burden for both the applicant and the program manager, some programs use alternative methods. We identify three common alternative verification methods: -Categorical eligibility: Customers enrolled in other, similar income-verified assistance programs are automatically eligible for enrollment in other income-qualified programs. -Geographic eligibility: Eligibility is based on the customer’s location within a specified area, typically a low-income or disadvantaged community or census tract, and; -“Self-attestation”: The participant claims eligibility with or without further documentation. We describe these options, their pros and cons, give examples of how they are used, and explore how some low-income programs address administrative issues, audits, or other quality control measures. Finally, we explore the risk of mistaken verifications (finding a participant eligible when they are not) in the different strategies. While this memo was initiated by a request relating to income-based community solar programs, the methods are applicable to any program with income eligibility requirements in the energy or non-energy sector. Funding was provided for this research by the Solar Energy Technologies Office of the US Department of Energy, through the National Community Solar Partnership.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Program Integration - 16638

The mission of Program Integration is to champion and steer the development and implementation of common and consistent programs between the Tank Operating Contract (TOC) contractor and the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) contractor. TOC is managed by Washington River Protection Solutions LLC (WRPS) and WTP is managed by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI). The DOE Office of River Protection (DOE ORP) is the Program Owner. WRPS has been actively managing the TOC at the Hanford Site Tank Farms (TF) since 2008. Programs are already developed, verified, and in use for the TOC, whereas WTP is still in the construction phase. WTP Programs are established for construction only, but not developed for commissioning and future operations. An extensive effort is underway at WTP to develop commissioning programs. In order to drive consistency and minimize differences in program requirements between TF, which will feed the tank waste, and WTP, which will receive and treat the tank waste, DOE-ORP requires the two contractors to integrate and collaborate in program development. Advantages of integration are: - Achieves cost and time savings as WTP is able to review existing TOC programs as starting points in development of its programs. - Promotes interfaces with industry counterparts to share experiences, issues, and lessons learned. ? Minimizes difference in program requirements between the companies. - Helps prepare for and ultimately succeed in Operational Readiness Reviews (ORR). Program Integration is a priority for TOC and WTP, and in order to maintain the focus and drive to this effort, a unified One System Program Integration Council (OSPIC) was created in 2012. Membership of the OSPIC consists of senior managers from both companies and the OSPIC chair's report directly to their respective President. Thirty (30) programs are subject to integration, including but not limited to Conduct of Operations, Worker Safety and Health, Quality Assurance, Contractor Assurance, and Environmental Management. Progress of program development and integration efforts are tracked and monitored, and barriers to integration are resolved in a collaborative fashion within both companies. (authors)

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

Transition of Site Programs and Implementation of Decommissioning Agent Oversight - 18653

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), acting as the Decommissioning Agent (DA), retained its NRC License and contracted a Decommissioning General Contractor (DGC) to manage plant programs and execute the Demolition and Dismantlement (D and D) of the site. To support this effort, over twenty-one programs transitioned to the DGC, including Occupational Health and Safety, Radiation Protection, Maintenance, and Engineering. In addition, SONGS effected a cultural shift from an operating station performing work to one of overseeing it. The framework and road map for this kind of D and D model is new to the industry. This presentation shares the SONGS' experience and lessons learned associated with this transition. SONGS and the DGC entered an Agreement that established the contractual requirements and responsibilities of the parties, the Scope of Work, and the mechanisms to ensure effective transition of DA programs. As a part of defining the Scope of Work, the contract established functional areas and divisions of responsibilities divided into the roles of Governance, Oversight, Support, and Performance (GOSP). SONGS, as the site licensee, retained the Oversight Role, with exception of those areas that, as the licensee, would be considered 'non-transferrable'. Examples of those programs were Quality Assurance, Regulatory Affairs and the Employee Concerns Program. While the Company retained responsibility for those programs the DGC developed their own 'parallel' programs that the Company provided Oversight for. In 2017, SONGS completed program transition within one-year following the notice-to-proceed. The overall strategy was driven by three high-level principles: - Allow the DGC the most unfettered execution of the Scope of Work with limited interference and maximum self-governance. With the overriding principle that transitioned programs have a direct link to a basis in regulation or law. - Identify safety and compliance risks, and then bridge the transition of programs from the SONGS to the DGC such that identified risks are minimized and/or mitigated. - Allow the SONGS organization to transition from a Performance role to a primarily Oversight role as the DA. Working collaboratively with the DGC, programs were strategically grouped and sequenced for turnover. Central to the success of transition was fostering a collaborative environment with the DGC, facilitating knowledge transfer, applying schedule rigor, and keeping the team horizontally and vertically aligned to management expectations. SONGS achieved this alignment by embedding the formal process with management expectations for review and acceptance of proposed programs. SONGS' transitioned core programs to a general contractor and transition from a 'perform' organization to an 'oversight' organization. Lessons learned from this experience may benefit other nuclear generating station owners currently evaluating options for site D and D. (author)

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

Use of Historical EM Practices and Policies for Management of Cleanup Program and Address GAO Concerns - 20222

As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗