Steven Krahn, Professor of the Practice of Nuclear Environmental Engineering in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Vanderbilt University, presents on needs and work in R&D regarding nuclear and chemical engineering. The NuClean Kick-Off workshop was held on Nov. 7, 2013 at the Handlery Union Square Hotel in San Francisco, CA, co-located with the AIChE 2013 Annual Meeting. For more information on NuClean, visit: http://www.aiche.org/cei/conferences/nuclean-workshop/2013. For more information on AIChE's Center for Energy Initiatives (CEI), visit: http://www.aiche.org/cei.

1. R&D at the Nuclear/Chemical Engineering
Interface: Some Indentified Needs & Work
Presentation to the NuClean COE
AIChE Annual Meeting 2013
Steve Krahn

2. Outline
• Some Emerging Needs
• A Different Nuclear
Education Perspective
• DOE & Nuclear
Separations
• Nuclear Chemical
Facilities
• Final Items & Thoughts
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

3. The Emerging Education Need
• A number of groups have recently
looked at the issue of knowledge
management and human capital
in the nuclear industry
• They have included: the NRC,
APS, ANS, IAEA, DOE and other
interested groups
• NRC:
– ‘traditionally stable workforce’
permitted a passive, “informal
approach” to knowledge
management
– concluded by stating that
additional focus was needed on
workforce planning, training
and teaching… with the average
age of the NRC workforce
approaching 50 years.
• DOE’s NEAC: the nuclear work
force… present sources may be
adequate for the status quo, but
that for any substantial new
construction, human resources
requirements… need to be reevaluated and career pathway
options developed.
• IAEA: “The anticipated growth in
nuclear generating capacity
coupled with recent and
continuing life extension of
existing plants create an
unprecedented demand for a
unique workforce resource: the
individual qualified in all of the
traditional nuclear power
disciplines.”

4. All Nuclear Disciplines?
Re-feed?
HEU Blenddown
De-convert?
Separate?
Right Waste
Form(s)?
One-size fits all?

5. Nuclear Environmental Engineering:
A Different Educational Perspective
• Still addresses reactor and fuel issues
• However, these are placed within the full fuel cycle, “ore to waste”
– Including a focus on sustainability along with radioactive & chemical waste
issues
– Philosophy: to understand and deal with this complex, hazardous waste you
need to understand where it came from and why.
• Curriculum developed under grants from the NRC & DOE, with
participation from NRC, DOE, EPA , along with industry and
academia
• Modules have been developed & evolved over the past six years:
– Nuclear Fuel Cycle Short Course (taught 3 times, most recently July 2011)*
with emphasis on chemical processes
– Nuclear Reactors and Fuels Short Course (Fall 2010)*
– Four graduate courses in Nuclear Environmental Engineering taught on
campus at Vanderbilt over the past two academic years to more than 30
graduate students (along with 8 undergrads…most recently)
*Note: The lecture materials for these two courses are available at the CRESP website,
in the education section (www.cresp.org).

6. Nuclear Environmental Engineering:
A Specialty within the ENVE PhD
• Built around a four core courses
– Introduction to Nuclear Environmental Engineering
(ENVE 285): the nuclear fuel cycle & impacts
– Nuclear Facilities Life Cycle Engineering (ENVE 330):
facility operations, design and analysis
– Storage, Treatment and Disposal of Radioactive
Waste (ENVE 332): dealing with radioactive waste in
all its forms
– “Advanced” Topics – process risk analysis; the nuclear
isotope uses, production and waste issues; nuclear
materials; alternate fuel cycles (e.g., thorium)
(variously numbered)

7. NEE Status and Path Forward
• Five PhD students now in the track, several MEng and Health
Physics MS have also completed the entire course cycle (or are in
the process)
• Continuously evaluating feedback from:
– Fuel cycle short courses delivered to professional audiences
– On-campus delivery of all four (4) courses, and
– Redefinition of the courses for the second cycle (in-process).
• Looking at the potential for two new “short courses,” based on
modules in the final course taught in the PhD sequence:
– Nuclear Materials
– Nuclear Process Safety
• Ongoing incorporation of insights from Vanderbilt fuel cycle &
environmental engineering research into curriculum

8. DOE Nuclear Separations Initiative
• A variety of program areas
within DOE have mission
needs R&D in the area of
nuclear separations science:
– Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE)
– Environmental Management
(DOE-EM)
– Science (DOE-SC)
– National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA)
• A collaborative effort was
launched in the summer of
2011

9. Progress in DOE Separations Planning
• The initial workshop effort
was divided into four
breakout sessions:
– Chemistry & Speciation of the
Actinides
– Design of Molecules &
Materials with Selective
Properties
– Scale-up of Separations
Processes
– Interface Issues between
Separations and Waste
Forms/Fuel Fabrication
• Workshop recommended a
collaborative planning
process to develop a DOE
Separations Technology
Roadmap
• DOE management and
working groups established
• Two follow-on technical
workshops in late 2012:
– Chemical Separations
– Physical Separations and
Process Chemistry
• Reports being finalized &
roadmap work on-going

10. DOE Chemical/Nuclear Facilities:
Safety & Operations
• Background & Motivation
– Increased number of DOE
nuclear facilities using
complex chemical processes
– Nuclear & Chemical industries
have differing regulatory
regimes and approaches to
safety management
• OSHA/CSB
• DOE/NRC/INPO
– Research opportunity in
review of US Chemical Safety
Board accident reports
• More than 60 reports
• “Key Issues”
• On-going collaborative project
with DOE-EM
– Analyze CSB reports: key issues
and then detailed content
– Develop understanding of causal
factors
– Translate understanding of
causes to performance measures
for operation and safety
• Presently finalizing understanding
of causal factors through 2-stage
analysis
– Review of CSB Key Issues
– Re-categorizing Key Issues

11. Observations To Date
• CSB expert-based causal analyses
– >90 different identified “Key
Issues”
– More than 60 of which occurred
only once
– Only a couple occurred in as many
as 1/3 of reports
• Identified Key Issues re-evaluated
using a structure based on the
OSHA guide on Process Safety
Management (PSM)
– Provided more standardized
wording
– Familiar to a broad audience
• Re-analysis indicated:
– Robust categorization (very few
binned as “other”)
– Five causal factors occurred in
more than 1/3 of all reports:
•
•
•
•
•
Design & Engineering
Use of Standards
Process Hazard Analysis
Emergency Planning and Response
Hazard Recognition
– Evaluating independence and
correlation of results
• Next steps
– Content analysis of reports to
confirm “Key Issue” insights
– Evaluate several accidents with
nuclear causal analysis
– Develop performance insights

12. Some Final Items/Thoughts
• Additional Items of
Note:
– DOE Probabilistic Risk
Assessment (PRA)
Standard to be issued
soon…process approach
taken
– Extensive DOE
evaluation of safety
culture on-going (DNFSB
2011-1): NRC concept of
Safety Conscious Work
Environment (SCWE)
• Thoughts
– Opportunity for nuclearchemical processing
community of practice
under NuClean?
• Challenge of combined
nuclear and chemical
hazards (separate and
combined effects)
• Technical and human
performance
• Your thoughts….?

13. Acknowledgements
• The work described herein was partially
supported by a grant with DOE, led by Vanderbilt,
entitled the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with
Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), for the
breadth of work performed visit cresp.org.
• Some of the education work was also performed
an education grant from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) entitled, “A Curriculum Guide
for Nuclear Environmental Protection.”

14. References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NEA (OECD), “Nuclear Education and Training: Cause for Concern?,” (2000).
IAEA, “Risk Management of Knowledge Loss in Nuclear Industry Organizations,”
Report, (2006).
APS, PANEL ON PUBLIC AFFAIRS, “Readiness of the U. S. Nuclear Workforce for 21st
Century Challenges,” Committee on Energy and Environment, Report, (June 2008).
ANS, SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN NUCLEAR EDUCATION,
“Nuclear’s Human Element: Defining the Federal Government’s Role in Sustaining
a Vibrant U.S. University-Based Nuclear Science and Engineering Education System
for the 21st Century,” Report, (December 2006).
D. KOSSON, C. POWERS, and M. STABIN, “A Curriculum Guide for Nuclear
Environmental Protection,” NRC Nuclear Education Grant NRC-38-07-496,
(September 2009).
The lecture materials for these two courses are available at the CRESP website, in
the education section (www.cresp.org).
S. KRAHN, D. KOSSON, and J. CLARKE, “A Systems Approach to Teaching
Radioactive Waste Management,” Trans. Amer. Nuc. Soc., 105, 177 (2011).
S. KRAHN, D. KOSSON, and J. CLARKE, “A Revolutionary Masters Degree in Nuclear
Environmental Engineering,” Trans. Amer. Nuc. Soc., 105, 127 (2011).
S. KRAHN & D. KOSSON, “The Continued Evolution of a Revolutionary Curriculum in
Nuclear Environmental Engineering” , Trans. Amer. Nuc. Soc., 106, 125 – 127
(2012)

15. References [2]
•
•
•
•
•
•
DOE, “Nuclear Separations Technologies Workshop Report: Getting From Where
We Are to Where We Want to be in Nuclear Separations Technologies,” July 27 -28,
2011, Bethesda, MD
A. GRIFFITH & S. KRAHN, “Report on a DOE Nuclear Separations Workshop and the
Path Forward,” Trans. of the Amer. Nuc. Soc., 106, p 215 – 216 (June 2012)
J. HUTTON, J., S. KRAHN, L. FYFFE, L., and J. CLARKE, “Developing Operational
Safety Performance Measures for Nuclear Chemical Facilities,” paper presented at
the 2013 International High Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference in
Albuquerque, NM, April 29- May 2, 2013.
J. HUTTON, J., S. KRAHN, L. FYFFE, L., and J. CLARKE, “U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Reports and Operational Safety Performance Measures for Nuclear Chemical
Facilities,” to be presented at the ANS Winter Meeting, Washington, DC, November
10-14, 2013.
J. O’BRIEN, G. SMITH, R. SASTRY, K. FLEMING, & S. KRAHN, “Development of a DOE
Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessments at Nuclear Facilities,” accepted for
presentation at the ANS Winter Meeting, November 11-15, 2013, Washington, DC.
P. BREDT, S. KRAHN, B. MOYER, J. VIENNA, J., B. WILMARTH, et al, Scientific
Opportunities to Reduce Risk in Nuclear Process Science, PNNL-17699, July 2008