Publications

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

This report is a functional review of the radionuclide containment strategies of fluoride-salt-cooled high temperature reactor (FHR), molten salt reactor (MSR) and high temperature gas reactor (HTGR) systems. This analysis serves as a starting point for further, more in-depth analyses geared towards identifying phenomenological gaps that still exist, hindering the creation of a mechanistic source term for these reactor types. As background information to this review, an overview of how a mechanistic source term is created and used for consequence assessment necessary for licensing is provided. How a mechanistic source term is used within the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) is also provided. Lastly, the characteristics of non-LWR mechanistic source terms are examined. This report does not assess the viability of any software system for use with advanced reactor designs, but instead covers system function requirements. Future work within the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulations (NEAMS) program will address such gaps. This document is an update of SAND 2020-6730. An additional chapter is included as well as edits to original content.

Gamma Detector Response and Analysis Software (GADRAS) is used by the radiation detection and emergency response community to perform modeling and spectral analysis for gamma detector systems. Built into GADRAS is the ability to define a detector, geometry, background characteristics and source composition to generate synthetic spectra for drills and exercises (injects). Consequence Management is currently in development of a sample result data simulator tool in which a deposition model is probed for source conditions at moments in time and locations in space. These values are used to generate realistic sample results for use in drills and exercises. In addition to sample results, there is a need to simulate the actual spectra that would be observed in the field by downlooking HPGe instruments given a deposition activity. This way, the FRMAC Gamma Spectroscopist can practice their process of generating quantified results from spectra on realistic data as well. Recognizing the decades of work done in GADRAS to accurately generate synthetic spectra, this team decided to build a link between the new simulator and GADRAS to generate these spectra quickly and easily. The simulator tool will generate a file that specifies the name of the spectra, its location, date/time of measurement, duration of measurement, height off the ground, and the deposition activity and age for every radionuclide in the simulation. Then, a new tool within the Inject Tab of GADRAS was developed to read in this file given a detector selection and generate In-Situ spectra for each row in the file in any file format the user chooses. This way, simulation cell staff can take these files and then upload them to the appropriate data system (RAMS or RadResponder) for use during drills and exercises. An advanced feature of this tool allows for generating any spectra given an appropriate model and mapping of source to model layer in the batch inject tool. This way, spectra from field sample counts, mobile laboratories, or even fixed laboratories can be generated in bulk given an estimate of the radioactivity concentration or total radioactivity in an import file. This expands the capabilities of this tool a great deal and will make it a more useful tool for CM and others to help estimate detector response for nearly any situation. This user guide will explain the steps needed to perform a batch inject file generation.

This document describes the requirements for a software tool that will enable FRMAC to simulate large sets of sample result data that is based realistically on simulated radionuclide deposition grids from NARAC. The user of this tool would be scientists involved in exercise and drill planning or part of the simulation cell of an exercise controller team. A key requirement is that this tool must be able to be run with a reasonable amount of training and job aids by any person within the Assessment, Laboratory Analysis, or Monitoring and Sampling divisions of the FRMAC to support any level of exercise from the small IPX to the national level full scale exercise. This tool should be relatively lean and stand-alone so that the user can run it in the field with limited IT resources. This document will describe the desired architecture, design characteristics, order of operations, and algorithms that can be given to a software development team to assist them in project scoping, costing, and eventually, development.

This document will describe the requirements for improvements to the Rad Responder platform to meet the needs of FRMAC Lab Analysis and other users of the sample control and lab analysis modules. The report is broken down into specific sections and organized by the specific deliverables under the FY19 FEMA-NIRT project. This report describes requirements that go beyond what was originally funded under the FY19 FEMA-NIRT project since auxiliary funding is being used on top of FEMA-NIRT funding through the DOE eFRMAC working group. This document describes all the lab analysis requirements for FRMAC Lab Analysis operations. Under each section the reader will find specific user "stories" or use-cases along with specific and technical requirements for each feature. Mock ups and data models will be provided as needed.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

Abstract not provided.

The High Burn-Up Demonstration Project was recently initiated by the Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate the effects of fuel drying and long term dry storage on high burn-up spent nuclear fuel. As part of the project, samples of the He backfill gas were collected 5 hours, 5 days, and 12 days after completion of drying. The samples provide information on the state of the fuel at closure, and on the environment within the cask. At Sandia National Laboratories, the samples were analyzed by gamma-ray spectroscopy to quantify fission product gases and by gas mass spectrometry to quantify bulk and trace gases; water content was measured via humidity probe. Gamma-ray spectroscopy results indicated no detectible ⁸⁵Kr, indicating no failed fuel rods were present after drying. Mass spectrometry indicated build-up of CO₂ to 930 ppmv over two weeks, attributed to oxidation of organic compounds (possibly vacuum grease or vacuum pump oil) within the cask. H₂, generated by either radiolysis or metal corrosion, also increased up to —500 ppmv. Water contents in the cask were higher than anticipated, increasing to —17,400 ppmv ±10% after 12 days. Measuring water content proved challenging, and possible improvements to the method for future analyses are proposed.

Abstract not provided.

The DOE and industry collaborators have initiated the high burn-up demonstration project to evaluate the effects of drying and long-term dry storage on high burn-up fuel. Fuel was transferred to a dry storage cask, which was then dried using standard industry vacuum-drying techniques and placed on a storage pad to be opened and the fuel examined in 10 years. Helium fill gas samples were collected 5 hours, 5 days, and 12 days after closure. The samples were analyzed for fission gases (85Kr) as an indicator of damaged or leaking rods, and then analyzed to determine water content and concentrations of other trace gases. Gamma-ray spectroscopy found no detectible 85Kr. Sample water contents proved difficult to measure, requiring heating to desorb water from the inner surface of the sampling bottles. Final results indicated that water in the cask gas phase built up over 12 days to 17,400 ppmv ±10%, equivalent to ∼100 ml of water within the cask gas phase. Trace gases were measured by direct gas mass spectrometry. Carbon dioxide built up over two weeks to 930 ppmv, likely due to breakdown of hydrocarbon contaminants (possibly vacuum pump oil) in the cask. Hydrogen built up to nearly 500 ppmv. and may be attributable to water radiolysis and/or to metal corrosion in the cask.

The goal of this project, started in FY17, is to develop and execute methods of characterizing uncertainty in data products that are developed and distributed by the DOE Consequence Management (CM) Program. This report presents the results of uncertainty analyses performed in FY18 for additional scenarios of increased complexity, including different time phases and radionuclide source terms.

On August 15th thru 17th, 2017 the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) Laboratory Analysis division, the FRMAC Fly Away Laboratory (FAL), the FRMAC Assessment division, and the Mobile Environmental Response Laboratory (MERL) held a training and capstone event for staff from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). LAB-100, "Sample Control Training", LAB-200 "QA Specialist Training", and LAB-300 "Laboratory Analysis Manager Training" was given the first two days of the event. The purpose of the training and capstone event was to meet training requirements for billeted FRMAC Lab Analysis staff from RSL, LLNL, and SNL as well as raise awareness of the FRMAC Lab Analysis process with EPA staff as part of a Federal Emergency Management Agency — Nuclear Incident Response Team (FEMA-NIRT) laboratory standardization project. An objective of the standardization project was to help improve the transition of operations from DOE to EPA during a response. To do this effectively, detailed knowledge of the FRMAC Lab Analysis process by the EPA is needed. This training provided a good opportunity for this knowledge transfer. A capstone was held after the two-day training event to allow participants to practice the skills they learned in a realistic scenario. A scenario that was previously developed for a quarterly Consequence Management drill (i.e. Dark Phoenix) was used as the basis for the capstone, with laboratory analysis focused injects used to drive the exercise play. Each position within the FRMAC Lab Analysis Division exercised to specific objectives and helped to uncover gaps in the established processes. The lessons learned during this capstone are broken out in the following categories: Sample Control, In-Situ Gamma Spectroscopy, Analysis Request Forms (ARF), Shipping, QA/QC, Fly Away Laboratory (FAL), and Management.

The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) relies on accurate and defensible analytical laboratory data to support its mission. Therefore, FRMAC must ensure that the environmental analytical laboratories providing analytical services maintain an ongoing capability to provide accurate analytical results to DOE. It is undeniable that the more Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control (QC) measures required of the laboratory, the less resources that are available for analysis of response samples. Being that QA and QC measures in general are understood to comprise a major effort related to a laboratory’s operations, requirements should only be considered if they are deemed “value-added” for the FRMAC mission. This report provides observations of areas for improvement and potential interoperability opportunities in the areas of Batch Quality Control Requirements, Written Communications, Data Review Processes, Data Reporting Processes, along with the lessons learned as they apply to items in the early phase of a response that will be critical for developing a more efficient, integrated response for future interactions between the FRMAC and EPA assets.

Abstract not provided.

From June 9th thru June 13th 2014, members of the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy Radiological Assistance Program (DOE RAP) Region-3 participated in a joint nuclear incident emergency response exercise at the Savannah River Site (SRS) near Aiken, South Carolina. The purpose of this exercise was to strengthen the interoperability relationship between the FRMAC, RAP, and the EPA Mobile Environmental Radiation Laboratory (MERL) stationed in Montgomery, Alabama. The exercise was designed to allowed members of the DOE RAP Region-3 team to collect soil, water, vegetation and air samples from SRS and submit them through an established FRMAC hotline. Once received and processed through the hotline, FRMAC delivered the samples to the EPA MERL for sample preparation and laboratory radiological analysis. Upon completion of laboratory analysis, data was reviewed and submitted back to FRMAC via an electronic data deliverable (EDD). As part of the exercise, an evaluation was conducted to identify gaps and potential improvements in each step of the processes. Additionally, noteworthy practices and potential future areas of interoperability between FRMAC and EPA were acknowledged. The exercise also provided a unique opportunity for FRMAC personnel to observe EPA sample receipt and sample preparation processes and to gain familiarity with the MERL laboratory instrumentation and radiation detection capabilities. The observations and lessons-learned from this exercise will be critical for developing a more efficient, integrated response for future interactions between the FRMAC and EPA assets.

From June 24th thru June 26th 2014, members of the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC), FRMAC Fly Away Laboratory, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a joint nuclear incident emergency response/round robin exercise at the EPA facility in Las Vegas, Nevada. The purpose of this exercise was to strengthen the interoperability relationship between the FRMAC Fly Away Laboratory (FAL) and the EPA Mobile Environmental Radiation Laboratory (MERL) stationed in Las Vegas, Nevada. The exercise was designed to allow for immediate delivery of pre-staged, spiked samples to the EPA MERL and the FAL for sample preparation and radiological analysis. Upon completion of laboratory analysis, data was reviewed and submitted back to the FRMAC via an electronic data deliverable (EDD). In order to conduct a laboratory inter-comparison study, samples were then traded between the two laboratories and re-counted. As part of the exercise, an evaluation was conducted to identify gaps and potential areas for improvements for FRMAC, FAL and EPA operations. Additionally, noteworthy practices and potential future areas of interoperability opportunities between the FRMAC, FAL and EPA were acknowledged. The exercise also provided a unique opportunity for FRMAC personnel to observe EPA sample receipt and sample preparation processes and to gain familiarity with the MERL laboratory instrumentation and radiation detection capabilities. The areas for potential improvements and interoperability from this exercise will be critical for developing a more efficient, integrated response for future interactions between the FRMAC and EPA MERL assets.