Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “compliance reporting”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2009

An Effective Health and Medical Technical Authority

The NASA Governance model directed the formation of three Technical Authorities, Engineering; Safety and Mission Assurance; and Health and Medical, to ensure that risks are identified and adjudicated efficiently and transparently in concert with the spaceflight programs and projects. The Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) has been implemented at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) and consists of the Chief Medical Office (CMO), the Deputy CMO, and HMTA Delegates. The JSC HMTA achieves the goals of risk identification and adjudication through the discharge of the appropriate technical expertise to human space flight programs and projects and the escalation of issues within program and technical authority boards. The JSC HMTA relies on subject matter experts (SMEs) in the Space Life Sciences Directorate at JSC as well as experts from other Centers to work crew health and performance issues at the technical level, develop requirements, oversee implementation and validation of requirements, and identify risks and non-compliances. Once a risk or potential noncompliance has been identified and reported to the programs or projects, the JSC HMTA begins to track it and closely monitor the program's or project's response. As a risk is developed or a non-compliance negotiated, positions from various levels of decision makers are sought at the program and project control boards. The HMTA may support a program or project position if it is satisfied with the decision making and vetting processes (ex. the subject matter expert voiced his/her concerns and all dissenting opinions were documented) and finds that the position both acknowledges the risk and cost of the mitigation and resolves the issue without changing NASA risk posture. The HMTA may disagree with a program or project position if the NASA risk posture has been elevated or obfuscated. If the HMTA does disagree with the program or project position, it will appeal to successively higher levels of authority so that risk acceptance and risk trades will be acknowledged and sanctioned at the highest appropriate level; this includes Program Managers, Mission Directorate Associate Administrators and the Agency Administrator.

Fogarty, Jennifer A.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Site Environmental Report–Pantex Plant (CY2020)

The 2020 Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes the Pantex Plant’s status, data, and efforts for the environmental compliance, protection, and restoration programs. It has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting (DOEa), and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (DOEb). These orders outline the requirements for environmental protection programs at DOE facilities to ensure that programs fully comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Pantex Plant Calendar Year 2021 (Annual Site Environmental Report)

The 2021 Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes the Pantex Plant’s status, data, and efforts for the environmental compliance, protection, and restoration programs. It has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting (DOEa), and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (DOEb). These orders outline the requirements for environmental protection programs at DOE facilities to ensure that programs fully comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Environmental Performance Report 2020 (Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2020, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Environmental Performance Report 2019: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2019, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Environmental Performance Report 2019: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2019, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Environmental Performance Report 2021: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2021, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

air quality↗
DOE OSTI2024

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Weapons Facility Operations #5 Decontamination and Demolition Project

Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has identified materials associated with Weapons Facility Operations (WFO) #5 that meet the criteria for unrestricted release to the public under Department of Energy (DOE) Order 458.1, Radiation Protection for the Public and the Environment (DOE, 2020) and materials in one building that did not meet the criteria for unrestricted release and are to be treated as low level waste (LLW). These conclusions are based on the known history of the area combined with radiation survey data data collected in 2022 and 2023. The findings are consistent with DOE Order 458.1 and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Functional Series Document EPC-ES-FSD-004, Environmental Radiation Protection (LANL, 2021). Sampling and data analysis, as described in this report, were sufficient to meet measurement quality objectives (MQOs) under the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME) manual (NUREG, 2009) and LANL procedures (LANL, 2020). Final approvals for waste disposition will come from LANL’s Waste Management Program.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1998

Chest wall mechanics in sustained microgravity

We assessed the effects of sustained weightlessness on chest wall mechanics in five astronauts who were studied before, during, and after the 10-day Spacelab D-2 mission (n = 3) and the 180-day Euromir-95 mission (n = 2). We measured flow and pressure at the mouth and rib cage and abdominal volumes during resting breathing and during a relaxation maneuver from midinspiratory capacity to functional residual capacity. Microgravity produced marked and consistent changes (Delta) in the contribution of the abdomen to tidal volume [DeltaVab/(DeltaVab + DeltaVrc), where Vab is abdominal volume and Vrc is rib cage volume], which increased from 30.7 +/- 3. 5 (SE)% at 1 G head-to-foot acceleration to 58.3 +/- 5.7% at 0 G head-to-foot acceleration (P < 0.005). Values of DeltaVab/(DeltaVab + DeltaVrc) did not change significantly during the 180 days of the Euromir mission, but in the two subjects DeltaVab/(DeltaVab + DeltaVrc) was greater on postflight day 1 than on subsequent postflight days or preflight. In the two subjects who produced satisfactory relaxation maneuvers, the slope of the Konno-Mead plot decreased in microgravity; this decrease was entirely accounted for by an increase in abdominal compliance because rib cage compliance did not change. These alterations are similar to those previously reported during short periods of weightlessness inside aircrafts flying parabolic trajectories. They are also qualitatively similar to those observed on going from upright to supine posture; however, in contrast to microgravity, such postural change reduces rib cage compliance.

manned↗
DOE OSTI2026

Lessons Learned for Transmission Cost Allocation in U.S. Regional Markets

Expanding electric transmission can facilitate generator interconnection and improve grid reliability. Assigning costs for new transmission infrastructure is highly contentious because these costs can have a direct impact on energy prices and ratepayer bills. In this report, we evaluate what factors influence successful transmission cost allocation agreements. Through a review of legal disputes, existing cost allocation practices, and regional case studies, we identify potential strategies to minimize cost allocation disputes for future projects. The report also highlights the processes by which regions can update their cost allocation methods. While we do not consider cost allocation methods currently under development for compliance with FERC Order 1920, the trends and lessons learned identified in this report can inform discussions on effective cost allocation methods to reduce barriers for transmission development.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Environmental Performance Report 2025: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in calendar year 2025, including information on environmental performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Diamond Drive Widening and Roundabout Construction Projects, Revision 1

Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has determined that the soil, concrete and asphalt associated with the Diamond Drive Widening/Roundabout Projects (Figure 1) meets the criteria for unrestricted release to the public under Department of Energy (DOE) Order 458.1, Radiation Protection for the Public and the Environment (DOE, 2020). These conclusions are based on the known history of the area combined with soil sample data collected in 2022; the findings are consistent with DOE Order 458.1 and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Functional Series Document EPC-ES-FSD-004, Environmental Radiation Protection (LANL, 2021). Sampling and data analysis, as described in this report, were sufficient to meet measurement quality objectives (MQOs) under the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME) manual (NUREG, 2009) and LANL procedures (LANL, 2020). Final approvals for waste disposition will come from LANL’s Waste Management Program.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of Cease Fire CFP 640 for Use in Gloveboxes (Final Report)

A Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) task group was established to discuss and evaluate a candidate fire suppression system (FSS) for gloveboxes (GB) and dropboxes (DB, for brevity, this report will simply refer to gloveboxes). Suitability criteria include compliance, compatibility, and capability. LANL contracted with New Mexico Tech (NMT) to quantitatively evaluate the perfor mance of one of those systems including its ability to extinguish GB fires, limit over-pressurization of the GB, etc. Additionally, the results of these experiments provide data points that could be used when fire hazard evaluations (FHEs) are conducted for determining when to require a fire suppres sion system installation within a GB (as required by NFPA 801, Standard for Facilities Handling Radioactive Materials, DOE Standard 1066-2012 Fire Protection, and AGS-G010-2011 Standard of Practice for Glovebox Fire Protection).

42 ENGINEERING↗