Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “HAZARD”

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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

The Explosive Hazards of Icosahedral Carboranes and Dodecaborate with Common Oxidizers and Salts

Carboranes find use in a wide variety of applications ranging from specialty catalysts to medicinal uses. Certain functionalized carboranes are described as explosive materials, although their nonfunctionalized precursors are regarded as inherently stable and not explosive. Herein, we report new findings on the sensitization of nonfunctionalized 12-vertex ortho-, meta-, and para-carboranes as well as dodecaborate in physical mixtures with several common inorganic salts. These mixtures were evaluated for explosive properties with drop hammer impact tests, friction tests, and differential scanning calorimetry thermal gravimetric analysis (DSC-TGA). Results indicate explosive sensitization to mechanical stimuli for the nonfunctionalized carboranes tested with a wide variety of inorganic salts, especially oxidizers. Sensitization of these compounds has not previously been reported, and raising awareness to the broader scientific community on this matter is warranted, especially as several of the mixtures evaluated are more sensitive to mechanical stimuli than primary explosives such as lead azide or pentaerythritol tetranitrate.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Characterizing Uncertainty in Synthetic Tropical Cyclone Hazard Models for U.S. Energy Infrastructure Resilience

Tropical Cyclones (TCs) are intense storms that pose a persistent and considerable risk to coastal communities and infrastructure in the global tropics and subtropics, including the United States (US). With known limitations associated with observations and high-resolution earth system models, synthetic TC models that capture a wide spectrum of storm possibilities have been developed to robustly quantify TC risk. Here we examine the simulation of various TC features in the North Atlantic relevant for US coastal risk in three synthetic TC models forced with ERA5 reanalysis: MIT, CHAZ and RAFT. While there is a broad agreement among these models in terms of their representation of salient TC characteristics, certain differences do exist. To connect these modeling uncertainties with energy infrastructure resilience, we apply fragility curves that link simulated TC intensities to damage probabilities, demonstrating how uncertainty in storm states may translate into that in coastal impacts. Our study indicates that acknowledging and accounting for inter-model uncertainty leads to more reliable risk assessments, strengthening science-to-action pathways for managing risks associated with TCs.

Baby John, Effy↗
DOE OSTI2019

Technology Applicable to Remote Hazardous Constituents and Waste Stream Grouping

Originally, Rocky Flats transuranic (TRU) waste was managed from waste streams that were composed of similar chemical constituents and were generated from identical processes. Early waste processing at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) maintained the Rocky Flats record until INL began generating their own item description codes (IDCs). Ultimately TRU waste management at INL was driven to combine wastes from all IDCs that were assigned by Rocky Flats to a summary category group regardless of whether the chemical constituents in the waste were known or not. At this point, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) certified program requirements to process the TRU waste according to waste streams was nearly eliminated. In April 2018, operations in the Sludge Repackage Project (SRP) area were halted by a radiological materials release accident in which drums containing waste experienced a loss of containment after over-pressurization occurred. Four SRP drums, repackaged in the Accelerated Retrieval Project (ARP) V area, had an adverse, delayed chemical reaction event occur when prohibited materials from one container were mixed with chemically-incompatible materials from other containers in the repackaging process. This incident was the direct result of processing unknowns under a protocol where the components of the waste were added to incompatible materials resulting in a run-away reaction. After a Difficult Waste Team (DWT) and Los Alamos National Laboratory – Carlsbad Operations (LANL-CO) subject matter expert (SME) visit in September 2019, it was determined by the team that all of the work observed on the September visit was performed upstream of the certified program and that the Visual Examination (VE) and other methods typically used by the certified program were being used for Acceptable Knowledge (AK) augmentation. This augmentation was needed in order to determine what the constituents in the waste might be, and is based primarily on collections of VE results. The waste at INL that is being processed in what is considered to be the Priority 2 (yellow) and Priority 3 (red) lists either needs AK to be completed before certified characterization can occur or is waiting to be processed because the waste has been mixed with unknown wastes resulting in a lack of information that could have impact of the ability to certify and ship the waste to the WIPP.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Antifoam Development for Eliminating Flammability Hazards and Decreasing Cycle Time in the Defense Waste Processing Facility

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was requested to develop a new antifoam control method for the Defense Waste Processing Facility’s (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC). SRNL completed testing of both chemical and nonchemical foam controls. The nonchemical foam controls were either ineffective (or worse, created more foam) or impractical (a water spray can control foam, but excessive water is needed). As a result, the focus of this study was on finding a superwetter or commercial antifoam for controlling foam. Thirty potential antifoams were tested as part of this study. A series of tests were developed to help screen out ineffective alternatives including: 1. Spreading testing of superspreaders, 2. Foam column testing with physical simulants, 3. Boiling testing with physical and chemical simulants, 4. Days-only Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) process simulations with sludge (containing noble metals and mercury), Precipitate Reactor Feed Tank (PRFT), and Slurry Mix Evaporator Feed Tank (SEFT) simulants in the RC1 Reaction Calorimeter (purchased for antifoam testing), and 5. Around-the-clock SRAT and Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) process simulations with sludge(containing noble metals and mercury), PRFT, and SEFT simulants in the RC1 Reaction Calorimeter. Evonik Surfynol® MD20, a commercially available defoamer, was relatively effective in controlling foam, while remaining chemically stable in SRAT and SME processing across the pH range of 4 to 13. No degradation products were detected in the offgas, in the condensate or in the SRAT and SME products. In nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet testing, 250 mg/kg Evonik Surfynol® MD20 was needed for foam control compared to 1,625 mg/kg for Antifoam 747, DWPF’s current antifoam. In nitric-formic acid flowsheet testing, 1,125 mg/kg of Evonik Surfynol® MD20 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. The commercially available superspreader Momentive™ Y-17112 was even more effective than Evonik Surfynol® MD20 as both a defoamer and an antifoam. Not only was the foam destroyed upon addition but also was less persistent between additions. It was the most effective antifoam in testing using both the nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet and the nitric-formic acid flowsheet. In nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet testing, only 100 mg/kg Momentive™ Y-17112 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. In nitric-formic acid flowsheet testing, 300 mg/kg Momentive™ Y-17112 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. Momentive™ Y-17112 is also resistant to hydrolysis as demonstrated by its chemical stability in SRAT and SME processing across the pH range of 4 to 13 and lack of degradation products in offgas or condensate. Both candidates were effective as potential replacements for Antifoam 747, with Y-17112 demonstrating superior foam control. During nitric-glycolic flowsheet testing 50% less antifoam was needed when using Momentive™ Y-17112 compared to MD20. During nitric-formic flowsheet testing 75% less antifoam was needed when using Momentive™ Y-17112 compared to MD20. Foam remediated with Momentive™ Y-17112 was less persistent throughout testing. In addition, no degradation products were detected in the offgas, in the condensate or in the SRAT and SME products. Based on this testing, Momentive™ Y-17112 is clearly superior to Evonik Surfynol® MD20 and Antifoam 747, especially for the nitric-formic acid flowsheet processing; it is recommended that Momentive™ Y-17112 replace Antifoam 747 in DWPF. An antifoam addition strategy is recommended for both the nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet and the nitric-formic acid flowsheet. Implementation of Momentive™ Y-17112 is expected to decrease SRAT and SME boiling times by up to 50%, eliminate the issues resulting from Antifoam 747 degradation products, and minimize foamovers. To validate the effectiveness of these defoaming agents, SRNL recommends irradiation of a SRAT or SME product simulant containing fresh antifoam. The goal of this testing is to determine whether the irradiation causes decomposition of the antifoam that would make it less effective or produce new species in the offgas or slurry. This testing began in April 2020. An evaluation should be completed to determine the thermolytic hydrogen and methane generation rate in downstream equipment, including the High-Level Waste evaporators.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydrogen Plant Hazards and Risk Analysis Supporting Hydrogen Plant Siting near Nuclear Power Plants. Final report

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are considering flexible plant operations to take advantage of excess thermal and electrical energy. One option for NPPs is to pursue hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis as an alternate revenue stream to remain economically viable. The intent of this study is to investigate the risk of a high temperature steam electrolysis hydrogen production facility (HTEF) in close proximity to an NPP. This analysis evaluates a postulated HTEF located 1 km from an NPP, including the likelihood of an accident and the associated consequence to critical NPP targets. This analysis shows that although the likelihood of a leak in an HTEF is not negligible, the consequence to critical NPP targets is not expected to lead to a failure at a distance of 1 km. Furthermore, the minimum separation distance of the HTEF is calculated based on the target fragility criteria of 1 psi defined in Regulatory Guide 1.91.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydrogen Plant Hazards and Risk Analysis Supporting Hydrogen Plant Siting near Nuclear Power Plants (Final Report)

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are considering flexible plant operations to take advantage of excess thermal and electrical energy. One option for NPPs is to pursue hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis as an alternate revenue stream to remain economically viable. The intent of this study is to investigate the risk of a high temperature steam electrolysis hydrogen production facility (HTEF) in close proximity to an NPP. This analysis evaluates a postulated HTEF located 1 km from an NPP, including the likelihood of an accident and the associated consequence to critical NPP targets. This analysis shows that although the likelihood of a leak in an HTEF is not negligible, the consequence to critical NPP targets is not expected to lead to a failure at a distance of 1 km. Furthermore, the minimum separation distance of the HTEF is calculated based on the target fragility criteria of 1 psi defined in Regulatory Guide 1.91.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Antifoam Development for Eliminating Flammability Hazards and Decreasing Cycle Time in the Defense Waste Processing Facility

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was requested to develop a new antifoam control method for the Defense Waste Processing Facility’s (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC). SRNL completed testing of both chemical and nonchemical foam controls. The nonchemical foam controls were either ineffective (or worse, created more foam) or impractical (i.e., a water spray can control foam, but excessive water is needed). As a result, the focus of this study was on finding a superwetter or commercial antifoam for controlling foam.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Radionuclide Emissions (CY 2019)

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) operates the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF). From 1951 through 1992, the NNSS was the continental testing location for U.S. nuclear weapons. The release of radionuclides from NNSS activities has been monitored since the initiation of atmospheric testing. After 1962, testing was limited to underground detonations, which greatly reduced radiation exposure to the public. Since the end of nuclear testing in 1992, radiation monitoring has focused on detecting airborne radionuclides from historically contaminated soils because this source dominates the potential offsite dose. These radionuclides are derived from re-suspension of soil (primarily by wind) and emission of tritium-contaminated soil moisture through evapotranspiration. Low amounts of legacy-related tritium are also emitted to air at the NLVF, an NNSS support complex in North Las Vegas.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗