Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “SAFETY STANDARDS”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Offshore Wind Workforce Safety Standards and Training Resource

The standardization of safety training requirements for people working at sea to build and operate offshore wind energy projects, adoption of those standards, and alignment with offshore safety training curriculum development was identified as a high-priority workforce gap in the U.S. Offshore Wind Workforce Assessment (Stefek, 2022). Safety is a top priority for the offshore wind industry; however, there has been uncertainty surrounding what unique safety standards and training will be needed and how various offshore wind safety stakeholders will be involved. The scope of safety training for this resource includes workers who build and operate offshore wind energy projects at sea and defines the stakeholders in the complex ecosystem. This fact sheet aims to help reduce these uncertainties by: 1) Delineating jurisdictional lines, while clarifying roles and responsibilities amongst stakeholders; 2) Identifying key actions or partnerships that can encourage further success with safety training and workforce development.

offshore wind↗
DOE OSTI2023

Conduct of Operations and Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards

Since the beginning of the nuclear age in 1943, there have been 22 criticality accidents in process facilities worldwide in which fissionable materials were processed by hand for various purposes. Of these 22 process criticality accidents, 16 involved faulty or flawed conduct of operations. Most of these process accidents (17 of 22) occurred before 1970, mostly due to the implementation of formal conduct of operations—such as the use of operating procedures and training—and the use of consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS). Obviously, the nuclear facilities applied lessons learned from their accident history, and the rate of criticality accidents was significantly reduced as a result. Over the years, it has been emphasized in NCS training courses and other venues in the United States that the consensus standards, such as ASA N6.1-1964, were the key contributors to this reduction in accidents. The formality of operations required to implement and apply the standards at a facility is also a crucial prerequisite that must be sufficiently robust to ensure NCS. This prerequisite is crucial to success fully implement the NCS consensus and other safety standards at a site.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluation of Safety Standards for Fuel System and Fuel Container Integrity of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) in place that specify requirements for integrity of the fuel system and fuel container on compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel vehicles. These are FMVSS Nos. 303, “Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles,” and FMVSS No. 304, “CNG fuel container integrity.” At this time, no FMVSS are defined for the fuel system and fuel container integrity of propane and liquefied natural gas (LNG) vehicles or fuel system integrity requirements for heavy-duty CNG vehicles on the road. However, there are voluntary industry design standards and best practices, as well as regulations defined in other countries. FMVSS No. 303 specifies requirements for the integrity of the CNG fuel system of light-duty vehicles and school buses, and FMVSS No. 304 specifies requirements for fuel container integrity on all CNG vehicles. FMVSS No. 304 applies to containers used for vehicle propulsion, whereas containers used to transport CNG and transportation of CNG containers are regulated by the DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304 are performance-based standards to consistently test and validate equipment and are not design restrictive. Despite the increasing number of natural gas and propane medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on the road, there are no FMVSS fuel system integrity requirements beyond light-duty and school buses for CNG vehicles and no FMVSS fuel system integrity requirements for propane vehicles. NHTSA is researching fuel system safety for medium- and heavy-duty natural gas and propane vehicles to update FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304. NHTSA is also researching current best practices and standards for high pressure fuel tanks in motor vehicles as they may apply to FMVSS No. 304.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Formality of Operations and Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards [Slides]

This presentation is on the formality of operations and nuclear criticality safety standards. This lecture starts with an Introduction then leads into a conversation on the dependencies of formality of operations. Secondly the presentation includes a review of past issues. Included is a Discussion about “credible” and “unlikely” – variables for process analysis in ANS-8.1, Section 4.1.2, and the double contingency principle, Section 4.2.2, respectively. The presentation finishes with some conclusions.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nuclear criticality safety standard for a fuel reprocessing plant assuming burnup credit published by the atomic energy society of Japan - 14591

In this paper an outline of the standard published in April 2015 by the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ) is presented. The standard gives basis of nuclear safety management of a spent fuel reprocessing plant that assumed burnup credit in nuclear criticality safety evaluation. Ten years ago the AESJ published Basic Items of Criticality Safety Control: 2004, AESJ-SC-F004:2004, which prescribed basic ideas, requirements and methods on nuclear criticality safety controls of facilities handling with nuclear fuel materials in general for preventing a nuclear criticality accident. However, it did not include any specific procedures for adopting burnup credit. Therefore, a new standard was envisaged as the first Standard for fuel reprocessing plants, which clarified the specific procedures to apply burnup credit to designers, operators, maintenance persons and administrators. The Standard, Procedures for Applying Burnup Credit to Criticality Safety Control of a Reprocessing Facility: 2014, AESJ-SC-F025: 2014, was developed by the AESJ after vital discussions of the Working Group on Nuclear Criticality Safety Control, which were followed by critical reviews of the Special Committee on Nuclear Fuel Cycle and those of the Standard Committee, where both committees were established under the AESJ. The followings are some features of the standard: 1. In many countries, application of burnup credit has been considered especially in transportation and storage of spent fuel. The standard applies to a reprocessing plant, especially to the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant in Japan. The present edition of the Standard assumes the first phase of burnup credit, i.e., burnup credit considering reduction in {sup 235}U, production of {sup 239}Pu and changes in other actinides, but not considering neutron absorption effect of fission products. 2. This standard covers nuclear criticality safety management including safety design and safety control stages. It prescribes each procedure of nuclear safety management with emphasis on its necessity rather in detail. Attached to the standard are seven appendices, which give reference to it, and explanations, which provide supplemental information to the readers. Future needs of AESJ standards in the field of nuclear criticality safety will be discussed in the presentation. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of ISO and ANSI/ANS Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards

This paper provides a high-level comparison between the international and domestic Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) standards, as requested by members of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division. Currently, there are 18 enacted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American National Standards (ANS) and 1 ANSI/ANS standard in progress. There are 11 NCS standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 (TC85) on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 (SC5) on Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Working Group 8 (WG8). There are NCS standard revisions in progress for both standards organizations.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of ISO and ANSI/ANS Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards [Slides]

This paper provides a high-level comparison between the international and domestic nuclear criticality safety (NCS) standards, as requested by members of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division. Currently, there are 18 enacted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American National Standards (ANS) standards, and 1 ANSI/ANS standard, in progress. There are 11 NCS standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 (TC85) on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 (SC5) on Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Working Group 8 (WG8). NCS standard revisions are in progress for both standards organizations. The key differences between the ISO TC85/SC5/WG8 and ANSI/ANS-8 consensus NCS standards are summarized. The hard work done by the ANS-8 and WG8 volunteers allows for applicable, high-quality consensus standards for use by the NCS community. This paper defines the current status of each ANSI/ANS and ISO standard, the work in in progress, the revisions/amendments in progress, and WG8/ANS-8 non-standard business in progress. A forthcoming paper will compare the development process for ISO and ANSI/ANS standards.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2013

The Environmental Protection Agency's Safety Standards for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel: Potential Path Forward in Response to the Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future - 13388

Following the decision to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application, the Department of Energy created a Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future, tasked with recommending a national strategy to manage the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The BRC issued its final report in January 2012, with recommendations covering transportation, storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF); potential reprocessing; and supporting institutional measures. The BRC recommendations on disposal of SNF and high-level waste (HLW) are relevant to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which shares regulatory responsibility with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): EPA issues 'generally applicable' performance standards for disposal repositories, which are then implemented in licensing. For disposal, the BRC endorses developing one or more geological repositories, with siting based on an approach that is adaptive, staged and consent-based. The BRC recommends that EPA and NRC work cooperatively to issue generic disposal standards-applying equally to all sites-early in any siting process. EPA previously issued generic disposal standards that apply to all sites other than Yucca Mountain. However, the BRC concluded that the existing regulations should be revisited and revised. The BRC proposes a number of general principles to guide the development of future regulations. EPA continues to review the BRC report and to assess the implications for Agency action, including potential regulatory issues and considerations if EPA develops new or revised generic disposal standards. This review also involves preparatory activities to define potential process and public engagement approaches. (authors)

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

Offshore Wind Electrical Safety Standards Harmonization (Workshop Proceedings)

Offshore wind (OSW) development activity is accelerating in the United States, with over 10 gigawatts (GW) of capacity likely to be installed on the Atlantic coast before 2030. In addition, states have committed to procure over 29 GW of offshore wind. Experienced European offshore wind energy developers are beginning to make large investments into offshore wind projects in American waters, and some U.S. developers have submitted key design documents for regulatory review. European offshore wind developers possess extensive experience in other geographic markets, which greatly increases confidence that the U.S. offshore wind industry will be successful. Nonetheless, existing U.S. electrical standards and European electrical standards are significantly different. If not addressed, these differences could potentially impact worker safety.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Enhanced electrical penetration components meet the high safety standards required for China's HTR-PM Shidaowan and generation mPower small modular reactors - 300

Enhanced glass-to-metal feedthroughs will be used to carry key instrumentation and control (I and C) signals in China's high-temperature, gas-cooled pebble-bed modular reactor (HTR-PM) at Shidaowan, and in Small Modular Reactor (SMR) prototyping. Chinergy Co., Ltd and Jiamusi Electric Machine Co., Ltd will use the feedthroughs, also called electrical penetration assemblies (EPAs), at the Shidaowan twin-reactor high temperature reactor (HTR). These feedthroughs are manufactured using specialized processes that make them far more robust than counterparts made with organic or ceramic materials. Improved EPAs manufactured by SCHOTT are the only feedthrough solution that can be used in the primary loop of an HTR because organic seals cannot withstand the high temperatures and pressures of this environment. Glass-to-metal seals (GTMS) are made using inorganic, non-aging materials which enable a virtually unlimited lifespan in high-temperature, high-radiation and high-pressure applications. This I and C technology package is being enhanced by the development and testing of new mineral-insulated (MI) cable connectors and EPAs made of crystallized glass-ceramic combined with superalloys. The EPAs have a maintenance-free lifespan of over 60 years, preventing any outage time related to these components and subsequently reducing costs associated with shutdowns. They are far more robust than organic seals and provide increased safety at a lower lifetime cost. Resistance against high pressure and high temperature are especially ideal qualities that make EPAs a valuable choice for environments with high standards for fire protection, such as nuclear plants, subsea oil drilling, or any other underwater application. Due to their significant offering of safety-relevant qualities, the EPAs have also been chosen by BWXT for implementation in its mPower SMR. Small modular reactor requirements are complex and very challenging but are met by the new EPA components, which will help form a strong I and C safety chain. Unlike ordinary compression glass-to-metal seals, GTMS with crystallized glass-ceramic have the ability to withstand temperatures of over 350 deg. C / 662 deg. F and operating pressures of 3500 bar. Furthermore, their lifetime is qualified for up to 60 years, including pressure and radiation requirements in accordance with the latest IEC/IEEE standards. Higher-specification EPAs and MI cable connectors have been designed into severe accident I and C instruments, including advanced hydrogen and oxygen sensors that exceed the challenging requirements of both HTR and SMR applications. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Process Safety Standards and Regulations

The list of standards, best practice, and regulations below are intended to give insight into what resources are available for developing a chemical control regime as well as information on what regulations other countries have used to implement such a regime. This list is not intended to be all inclusive and other regulations and standards related to controlling hazardous chemicals exist and should be consulted.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Standard Criticality Safety Requirements #1-520 g Operations in PF-4

Guidance has been requested from the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division (NCSD) regarding processes that involve 520 grams of fissionable material or less. This Level-3 evaluation was conducted and documented in accordance with NCS-AP-004 (Ref. 1), formerly NCS-GUIDE-01. This evaluation is being written as a generic evaluation for all operations that will be able to operate using a 520-gram mass limit. Implementation for specific operations will be performed using a Level 1 CSED, which will confirm and document that this CSED can be used for the specific operation as discussed in NCS-MEMO-17-007 (Ref. 2). This Level 3 CSED updates and supersedes the analysis performed in NCS-TECH-14-014 (Ref. 3).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Analyses in Support of Risk-Informed Natural Gas Vehicle Maintenance Facility Codes and Standards: Phase I

Safety standards development for maintenance facilities of liquid and compressed gas fueled large-scale vehicles is required to ensure proper facility design and operation envelopes. Standard development organizations are utilizing risk-informed concepts to develop natural gas vehicle (NGV) codes and standards so that maintenance facilities meet acceptable risk levels. The present report summarizes Phase I work for existing NGV repair facility code requirements and highlights inconsistencies that need quantitative analysis into their effectiveness. A Hazardous and Operability study was performed to identify key scenarios of interest. Finally, scenario analyses were performed using detailed simulations and modeling to estimate the overpressure hazards from HAZOP defined scenarios. The results from Phase I will be used to identify significant risk contributors at NGV maintenance facilities, and are expected to form the basis for follow-on quantitative risk analysis work to address specific code requirements and identify effective accident prevention and mitigation strategies.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

ANS-8 Nuclear Criticality Safety Consensus Standards - Current Initiatives

The nuclear criticality safety (NCS) consensus standards are developed as using rigorous procedures of the Standards Board of the American Nuclear Society. These procedures have been accredited by the American National Standards Institute, Inc., as meeting the criteria for American National Standards. The Nuclear Criticality Safety Consensus Committee (NCSCC) that approved all 18 NCS consensus standards is balanced to ensure that competent, concerned, and varied interests have had an opportunity to participate. The ANS-8 subcommittee (ANS-8) consists of 17 NCS experts with many years of experience as end users of ANS standards who serve on standard working groups to develop and maintain standards. ANS-8 ensures that the technical content of the standards is adequate for NCS community use. Attempts are made to ensure that ANS-8 consists of NCS professionals with a diverse range of experience such that all standards are applicable to as many sites as possible. ANS-8 is a very active subcommittee, and some active projects in progress are discussed in this paper: basis statement development for all standards, development of a glossary for consistency of definitions across all ANS-8 standards, and Considering the Criticality Safety Support Group (CSSG) Recommendation 2016-04 to the ANS Standards Board for changes in several ANS-8 standards.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2016

Introduction on Recently Revised Regulatory Framework Related to Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities in Korea - 16488

There are 24 units of nuclear power reactors in operation and 4 units of nuclear power reactors under construction in Korea as of November 2015. However, there is no permanently shutdown nuclear power reactor and decommissioned or under decommissioning nuclear power reactor. There are only 2 research reactors being decommissioned since 1997. It is realized that improvement of the regulatory framework for decommissioning of nuclear facilities has been emphasized constantly from the point of view of IAEA's safety standards. IAEA published the safety requirement on decommissioning of facilities on July 2014; its title is the Safe Decommissioning of Facilities, General Safety Requirement Part 6. According to follow up action on the result of IAEA's Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission to Korea in 2011, regulatory framework for decommissioning of nuclear facilities in Korea was revised through comparing to IAEA safety standards. It was identified that items should be revised to improve the regulatory framework for decommissioning. Those are as follows: absence of legal definition of decommissioning, incomplete procedure for safety regulation after permanent shutdown, un-detailed acceptance criteria for decommissioning plan, incomplete requirements for early preparing and periodic update of decommissioning plan, un-detailed requirements on standard format and contents for decommissioning plan, and incomplete radiological criteria on site and building reuse after completion of decommissioning. Nuclear Safety Act related to decommissioning of nuclear facilities was revised and promulgated on 21 July 2015. As the lower statute of Nuclear Safety Act, Enforcement Decree of the Nuclear Safety Act and Enforcement Regulation of the Nuclear Safety Act were also revised and promulgated on 21 July 2015. In this paper, related to decommissioning of nuclear facilities such as nuclear power reactor, research or training reactor, and nuclear fuel cycle facility, it was introduced the main changes of the amended and promulgated Nuclear Safety Act on July 2015. It was also mentioned about the current issue in accordance with its implementation. Main contents of revised Nuclear Safety Act are that decommissioning plan should be submitted for nuclear installations to be constructed and operated, and this plan should be updated periodically. In addition, 3 years of grace period was set to submit preliminary decommissioning plan for the facility which has already been approved prior to July 2018. Preliminary decommissioning plan should be updated every 10 years, and regulatory body should review this document. According to the revised Nuclear Safety Act, in the case of a nuclear power reactor after the approval of the change on operating license for permanent shutdown, should submit final decommissioning plan within 5 years, and be approved by the regulatory body. On July 2015, Kori Unit 1 was determined not to apply its 2nd continued operation, and will expire in 2017. Kori Unit 1 will be the first case for the submission of final decommissioning plan. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗