Publications

Leute, Jennifer E.; Smith, Mariah L.; Leonard, Elliott J.; Andrews, Nathan A.; Luxat, David L.; Wagner, Kenneth C.

Abstract not provided.

Clark, Andrew C.; Higgins, Michael H.; Leonard, Elliott J.; Leute, Jennifer E.; Luxat, David L.; Nenoff, T.M.

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.

Fournier, Sean D.; Enghauser, Michael E.; Leonard, Elliott J.; Thoreson, Gregory G.

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.

Fournier, Sean D.; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Bryan, Charles R.; Jarek, Russell L.; Flores, Christopher; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Bryan, Charles R.; Jarek, Russell L.; Flores, Christopher; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Fournier, Sean D.; Allen, Mark B.; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Bryan, Charles R.; Jarek, Russell L.; Flores, Christopher; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Bryan, Charles R.; Jarek, Russell L.; Flores, Christopher; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

International High-Level Radioactive Waste Management 2019, IHLRWM 2019

Bryan, Charles R.; Jarek, Russell L.; Flores, Christopher; Leonard, Elliott J.

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.

Fournier, Sean D.; Shanks, Sonoya T.; Allen, Mark B.; Leonard, Elliott J.

Abstract not provided.

Shanks, Sonoya T.; Redding, Ted R.; Jaussi, Lynn J.; Allen, Mark B.; Fournier, Sean D.; Leonard, Elliott J.

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.

Leonard, Elliott J.; Fournier, Sean D.

Abstract not provided.

Allen, Mark B.; Shanks, Sonoya T.; Fournier, Sean D.; Leonard, Elliott J.

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.

Allen, Mark B.; Shanks, Sonoya T.; Fournier, Sean D.; Leonard, Elliott J.

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.