Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “guidance document”

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

NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document

The NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document is part of the NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit for Carbon Utilization funding recipients to meet their LCA requirements. The toolkit includes the following files: NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document, NETL CO2U openLCA LCI Database, NETL CO2U openLCA Results Contribution Tool, NETL CO2U LCA Documentation Spreadsheet, and NETL CO2U LCA Report Template. The NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document provides guidance to funding recipients on what shall, should, and may be included in their LCA, along with helpful information on completing their LCA.

Source record↗

45Q Addendum to the NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document (V.2.0)

This document provides additional guidance and changes to the Carbon Dioxide Utilization Life Cycle Analysis Guidance for the U.S. DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Version 2.0 to make it more applicable to taxpayers preparing life cycle analyses for the 45Q tax credit. This update adds clarity to existing text and includes information on new tools and data available.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Example Alternative Compliance Waiver Application: EPAct State and Alternative Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

The U.S. Department of Energy developed an electronic planning spreadsheet to facilitate fleets' preparation of a complete Alternative Compliance (AC) waiver application. All fleets that participate in AC are encouraged to use the spreadsheet. The example in this guidance document includes all components that must be included in a fleet’s AC waiver application.

AC waiver↗

Molten Salt Reactor Technical and Safety Considerations Outside of Guidance Documents

This document provides information on distinctive characteristics of liquid salt–fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs) for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consideration as it seeks to achieve effective and efficient advanced reactor mission readiness. The NRC has requested that Oak Ridge National Laboratory provide advice regarding technical and safety considerations that might be advantageous to address via policy, rulemaking, or license conditions (i.e., beyond the scope of guidance documents) for accommodating MSRs. It is recognized that MSRs could be regulated based on existing rules, with exceptions, to reflect their distinctive characteristics and technologies. However, directly applying the existing regulatory processes that evolved with the light water reactor fleet to MSRs could be unduly burdensome to the point that their application would inhibit deployment of MSRs in the United States.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Guidance on EPAct section 707 Emergency Repair and Restoration Vehicle Exclusions: EPAct State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

Section 707 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) amended section 301(9)(E) of EPAct 1992 by adding to the list of vehicles excluded from the definition of "fleet" a new subcategory of emergency motor vehicles, i.e., "vehicles directly used in the emergency repair of transmission lines and in the restoration of electricity service following power outages, as determined by the Secretary." Like other excluded vehicles, these light-duty vehicles (LDVs) do not count (1) when determining whether a fleet is covered under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program (Program), and (2) for fleets that are covered under the Program, when calculating annual alternative fuel vehicle (AFV)-acquisition requirements. If AFV models of excluded vehicles are acquired, however, a fleet may count them toward their acquisition requirement by including them in the calculation of the number of AFVs acquired. Exclusion Process.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗

Requesting an Exemption from Standard Compliance: EPAct State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

The U.S. Department of Energy established the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (Program) and associated regulatory requirements pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Program, otherwise known as the State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program, requires covered state government and alternative fuel provider fleets operating under Standard Compliance to acquire alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) as a specific percentage of their annual non-excluded light-duty vehicle acquisitions. The opportunity for covered fleets operating under Standard Compliance to request exemptions from their AFV-acquisition requirements serves as administrative relief in the unlikely event a fleet is unable to satisfy its requirements through the normally available compliance alternatives. These alternatives include the acquisition of light-duty AFVs, the acquisition of other, creditable vehicles (e.g., gasoline-fueled hybrid electric vehicles), making certain investments, the purchase of biodiesel for use in medium- or heavy-duty vehicles to the maximum extent allowed, and purchasing or trading for banked AFV credits. This document addresses requests for exemptions from the AFV-acquisition requirements to help covered fleets better understand: How to file a request for an exemption, information and documentation DOE needs to process an exemption request, and important policies relevant for filing exemption requests.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗

Current and future federal and state sampling guidance for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in environmental matrices

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of emerging contaminants composed of an estimated 5000 to 10,000 human-made, fluorinated, organic chemicals. Due to the complexity of PFAS, the need for multiple environmental matrix considerations and the absence of a promulgated federal standard for environmental sampling and analysis, U.S. states have begun developing health-based regulatory and/or guidance values for a limited number of PFAS in environmental matrices. As there is a growing body of science to inform PFAS sampling guidance standard development, it is important to understand which U.S. states are implementing sampling guidelines and how they plan to handle emerging PFAS. This critical review discusses the current and impending federal and state sampling guidelines for PFAS in environmental matrices, the data gaps surrounding PFAS sampling guidance in U.S. states, and the future impacts of impending guidance documents and regulations. Ten federal guidance documents are available for PFAS sampling guidance and analysis. The maximum number of PFAS covered in these guidance documents is 25 analytes spanning across 8 unique media. While the EPA has developed several different sampling and analytical guidelines for PFAS, there is no formal regulation of PFAS or requirements of states to enforce these guidelines. Consequently, only 31 states have informally adopted sampling guidelines, while the other 19 states have no guidance documentation in place for PFAS. The introduction of new PFAS sampling guidelines by the EPA, as well as updated analytical guidelines that target more PFAS or total organofluoride, is expected to continuously shift the landscape of federal and state guidance for PFAS sampling moving forward.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Moving from scientific research to consenting guidance for MRE environmental risk

Potential environmental effects from tidal and wave devices are of concern to regulators, advisors, and other stakeholders in many nations. Monitoring results from early deployments and the first commercial arrays, coupled with targeted research studies, are providing a growing base of knowledge of how components of tidal turbines and wave energy converters might interact with marine animals and habitats. Efforts are underway to organize and direct these findings towards facilitating consenting that allays concerns and allows the marine renewable energy (MRE) industry to move forward. The OES-Environmental international initiative has developed scientific evidence bases for several key interactions from MRE devices, organized around stressors (portions of MRE systems that may cause injury or stress to the marine ecosystem), and receptors (the animals, habitats, and ecosystem processes that may be affected). This paper summarizes the evidence bases for four stressors (underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, habitat change, and changes in oceanographic systems) and presents the process of moving from the scientific knowledge into guidance documents to support the regulatory process. The guidance documents will serve as a broad guide that can be used internationally to look at stressor-receptor interactions of interest within a regulatory context. The evidence bases and guidance documents aim to assist MRE developers, regulators, and advisors with project scoping, consenting, and licensing processes.

Copping, Andrea E.↗

Development of Criticality Safety Validation Guidance for NRC-Regulated Activities

Some guidance documents support validation of criticality safety evaluations for many system types, and some accommodate different regulators or regulatory requirements. While these reports address specific applications, no single document applies to all systems and incorporates both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based validation techniques. Oak Ridge National Laboratory will develop a single reference report for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that provides modern examples and suggested recommendations for a uniform approach for performing and documenting k eff calculation validations applicable to any system containing fissile material. The project will include a literature review and development of a new, comprehensive NUREG/CR document on nuclear criticality safety validation. The NUREG will address the following experiences from recent reviews: 1. Inappropriate critical experiment selection 2. Insufficient trending analysis 3. Incorrectly calculated 95/95 uncertainties 4. Failure to address how validation applies to safety analysis 5. Lack of goodness-of-fit testing in trending analyses 6. Incorrect use of commercial reactor critical data 7. Failure to meet bias determination methodology prerequisites 8. Inappropriate extrapolation of bias and uncertainty 9. Failure to identify validation analysis gaps and weaknesses 10. Inadequate validation analysis documentation the final report will provide guidance on use of trending analysis results, acceptable confidence levels for normality testing and trending analysis, management of validation analysis gaps and weaknesses, use of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in validation analysis, and potential impact of correlations among critical experiments used in validation. It will also consolidate existing guidance documents using both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based approaches. This document will support NRC-regulated activities, as well as validation used in criticality safety within other regulatory frameworks.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

Development of criticality safety validation guidance for NRC-regulated activities

Some guidance documents support validation of criticality safety evaluations for many system types, and some accommodate different regulators or regulatory requirements. While these reports address specific applications, no single document applies to all systems and incorporates both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based validation techniques. Oak Ridge National Laboratory will develop a single reference report for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that provides modern examples and suggested recommendations for a uniform approach for performing and documenting k{sub eff} calculation validations applicable to any system containing fissile material. The project will include a literature review and development of a new, comprehensive NUREG/CR document on nuclear criticality safety validation. The NUREG will address the following experiences from recent reviews: 1) Inappropriate critical experiment selection; 2) Insufficient trending analysis; 3) Incorrectly calculated 95/95 uncertainties; 4) Failure to address how validation applies to safety analysis; 5) Lack of goodness-of-fit testing in trending analyses; 6) Incorrect use of commercial reactor critical data; 7) Failure to meet bias determination methodology prerequisites; 8) Inappropriate extrapolation of bias and uncertainty; 9) Failure to identify validation analysis gaps and weaknesses; and 10) Inadequate validation analysis documentation. The final report will provide guidance on use of trending analysis results, acceptable confidence levels for normality testing and trending analysis, management of validation analysis gaps and weaknesses, use of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in validation analysis, and potential impact of correlations among critical experiments used in validation. It will also consolidate existing guidance documents using both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based approaches. This document will support NRC-regulated activities, as well as validation used in criticality safety within other regulatory frameworks. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

EM Program Expectations on Implementation of DOE O 458: Radiation Protection of Public/Environment - 19553

DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment, was issued in 2011. DOE sites were given 18 months to implement. The revised Order promulgates requirements for property clearance actions and independent verification. DOE Order 458.1 allows for preapproved authorized limits for the clearance of property. However, when property with the potential to contain residual radioactive material does not meet preapproved authorized limits, an authorized limits package must be developed. The Order contains a range of requirements for demonstrating with reasonable assurance that dose constraints are met for any actual or likely future use of the property to be released. EM has developed a draft guidance document that provides the elements of an authorized limits package. These elements are used to review all authorized limits packages that are submitted to EM. Expected elements include property description and process knowledge documentation, current and likely future use, the conceptual site model, dose modeling methodologies, specific authorized limits, dose- or concentration-based constraints, collective dose estimate to the potentially exposed population, stakeholder communications, description of the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) analysis, implementation plan, evaluation of difficult to assess surfaces, and independent verification plan. The draft guidance document also provides further explanation of the desired elements of an independent verification (IV) plan. An IV plan should describe the planning phase, implementation phase, assessment phase, and decision phase of an activity. The planning phase includes scope and cost, concurrent with cleanup contractor procurement, and review and approval of site radiological survey clearance program and IV program plans. The implementation phase assures sufficient collection of data and adjustment can be made as necessary. During the assessment phase, data and reports are reviewed, and coordination between the clean-up contractor and IV personnel occurs. A decision of whether or not the clearance actions need to be altered occurs during the decision phase. IV certification that the clearance action is complete also occurs during the decision phase. Issuance of the final guidance document is meant to improve the consultation process and minimize iterative interactions with EM. Standardizing and formalizing property clearance and IV actions also helps assure that cleanup actions are transparent and sustainable for future scrutiny. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Better Climate Challenge: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Guidance

Better Climate Challenge Greenhouse Gas Reporting Guidance document can help you define the scope of your commitment, set your goal and base year, and annually report progress toward your goal for Better Climate Challenge Program. You will share GHG emissions and energy data across your building/plant portfolio with DOE, including owned and operated fleets. This document provides instructional guidance on how to quantify GHG emissions across your organization. Establishing an accurate GHG inventory is a critical first step to developing a plan to reduce emissions across your organization.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Assessment of Survey Results from Advanced Reactor Industry Domain Experts on Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Software Verification and Validation

The seismic load case has a significant impact on the design and cost of nuclear power plants. Given the need to substantially reduce cost, advanced reactor designers are looking to leverage numerical tools that enable seismic analysis of an integrated vessel/support/structure/soil system. Modern nonlinear analysis tools provide a solution, capturing dynamic coupling between components (including soil-structure interaction (SSI)) concurrent with nonlinear behavior in one or more parts of the system. Although these methods have a rich history of technical development and implementation, software quality assurance (SQA) following nuclear industry standards remains a significant burden for those wishing to adopt such methods for advanced reactor design and licensing. To reduce the SQA burden, this project will develop the guidance for SQA verification and validation (V&V) of coupled nonlinear SSI analysis tools, to include a test matrix of software features and test problems to support commercial grade dedication (CGD). The guidance is intended to be technology-neutral: supporting designers of all advanced reactors. To maximize the value of the project to reactor designers, the project team performed focused surveys of and interviews with advanced reactor designers. Additionally, the project surveyed members of the broader industry involved in reactor design and licensing. The aggregated industry feedback consists of written survey responses, live polling responses, focused interviews, and informal feedback provided after outreach presentations, collectively referred to as “survey results”. Herein, the survey results are reported, reviewed, and assessed to inform follow-on project activities. The survey results confirmed the familiarity of the industry with the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis. They also affirm the project need based upon the expressed intent to (1) incorporate nonlinear features and (2) pursue the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis to reduce seismic demands and construction costs. All reactor designers indicated their intent to incorporate two or more nonlinear features, and all reactor designer respondents opined that the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis would allow for the optimization of the reactor design and construction. However, the programmatic challenges, whether real or perceived, present a significant barrier to reactor designers. The barrier most commonly identified by the reactor designer population was regulatory risk, with 70% citing this as a reason not to pursue the approach. The perceived regulatory risk identified by the reactor designers underscores the importance of regulator engagement and dialogue in this project. Additionally, half of the reactor designers identified cost and lack of guidance as a deterrent. The survey results also provide insights to tailor specific aspects of the guidance document and test matrix. The project plans to prepare both a formal referenceable guidance document and a collaborative, web-based test matrix and problem set. The project will focus on more complete test problem definitions for the prioritized nonlinear features over shallower problem descriptions for a larger set of features. The nonlinearities prioritized as high based upon survey feedback include fluid-structure interaction and seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices. The nonlinearities prioritized as intermediate include nonlinear geomaterials, nonlinear concrete, nonlinear steel, and interface/contact nonlinearity. Deep embedment and the associated nonlinear phenomena are assigned the lowest priority based upon survey feedback.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Carbon Conversion Technologies - NETL Techno-Economic Analysis Guidelines

This presentation was delivered as part of the Global CO2 Initiative and NETL sponsored workshop, 2022 CCU TEA and LCA Guidance - A Harmonized Approach. The presentation highlights the intent and content of forthcoming NETL guidance documents and toolsets on conducting techno-economic analysis on carbon conversion technologies. Specifically discussed are the "Performing a TEA for Carbon Conversion Technologies" guidance document, the "Cost Scaling Methodology Specific to Carbon Conversion Technologies," and brief highlights of upcoming work products.

Henry, Samuel↗

TCR Input to NUREG-1537 Process for Advanced Nuclear Technologies Derived from Additive Manufacturing

There has been a renewed interest by several advanced reactor developers to use NUREG-1537 “Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors” as a basis for their safety analysis report content and organization. Recently, SHINE Medical Technologies, LLC (SHINE), which is a non-power, Aqueous Homogenous Reactor design radioisotope production facility, received a construction permit based around their NUREG-1537 safety evaluation report (ADAMS No. ML16229A140). Advanced reactor developers are interested in using NUREG-1537 as a basis for their safety analysis report content and organization because of its successful application towards research reactors, graded approach, and simplicity in structure and requirements. However, NUREG-1537 is still largely geared toward light water reactors (LWRs) and many improvements could be made or supported through guidance documents for advanced reactors. For nuclear power to play a role in the future zero-carbon energy portfolio, a supportive regulatory structure is needed to lower regulatory uncertainty and barriers to deployment. At the time of this report, no such document or pathway exists for advanced nuclear technologies, including those derived from nontraditional technology such as advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) and, specifically, additive manufacturing. This report will explore and provide recommendations as to how advanced nuclear technologies derived from additive manufacturing technologies could employ the use of an ISG, other guidance document, or revisions to NUREG-1537 to lower the regulatory uncertainty and barriers for adoption.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗