Results for “spatial and spectral analysis” — Page 12

DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW PPT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Co-Disposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW - 20331

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

Fermi-LAT View on Three Ultra-high-energy 1LHAASO Sources in the 52° < l < 55° Region

Using more than 17 yr of Fermi-LAT data, we performed a detailed investigation of the complex 52° < l < 55° region, which encompasses the three ultra-high-energy sources 1LHAASO J1928+1746u, 1LHAASO J1928+1813u, and 1LHAASO J1929+1846u. This region hosts multiple supernova remnants (SNRs), pulsars, GeV and TeV sources. Our analysis resolves the GeV emission into three pointlike sources (J1925+1729P, J1930+1851P, and J1932+1916P) and two extended sources (J1929+1732E and J1930+1826E), and improves significantly on the description based on the 4FGL-DR4 catalog. Source J1932+1916P is identified as the known gamma-ray pulsar PSR J1932+1916, while J1925+1729P may be a new gamma-ray pulsar candidate distinct from the known gamma-ray pulsar PSR J1925+1720. This warrants future investigation and a search for pulsations. Source J1930+1851P coincides with the TeV source PWN/SNR G54.1+0.3, and its GeV−TeV spectrum is consistent with both leptonic and hadronic interpretations, although a leptonic origin in relation to the known pulsar wind nebula (PWN) is more likely. The GeV−TeV spectrum of J1929+1732E is consistent with a hybrid lepto-hadronic scenario in which the TeV emission traces the PWN powered by the pulsar PSR J1928+1746, while the GeV emission may result from interactions between particles escaped from the parent SNR and illuminating the gas environment. Similarly, J1930+1826E is likely connected to PWN/SNR G54.1+0.3 under a hadronic scenario involving escaped particles in their early propagation stage. Owing to spectral and/or morphological mismatches, the connection of these five GeV sources to the three LHAASO sources is not clear. This warrants deeper observations with HAWC and LHAASO, and a dedicated study of the modeling of the Galactic diffuse emission. Future CTAO observations with higher angular resolution are expected to deliver crucial information for the study of this region.

Liu, Linjie [Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Ku↗

DOE OSTI2023

Data and scripts associated with a manuscript investigating impacts of solid phase extraction on freshwater organic matter optical signatures and mass spectrometry pairing

This data package is associated with the publication “Investigating the impacts of solid phase extraction on dissolved organic matter optical signatures and the pairing with high-resolution mass spectrometry data in a freshwater system” submitted to “Limnology and Oceanography: Methods.” This data is an extension of the River Corridor and Watershed Biogeochemistry SFA’s Spatial Study 2021 (https://doi.org/10.15485/1898914). Other associated data and field metadata can be found at the link provided. The goal of this manuscript is to assess the impact of solid phase extraction (SPE) on the ability to pair ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry data collected from SPE extracts with optical properties collected on ambient stream samples. Forty-seven samples collected from within the Yakima River Basin, Washington were analyzed dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC), absorbance, and fluorescence. Samples were subsequently concentrated with SPE and reanalyzed for each measurement. The extraction efficiency for the DOC and common optical indices were calculated. In addition, SPE samples were subject to ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry and compared with the ambient and SPE generated optical data. Finally, in addition to this cross-platform inter-comparison, we further performed and intra-comparison among the high-resolution mass spectrometry data to determine the impact of sample preparation on the interpretability of results. Here, the SPE samples were prepared at 40 milligrams per liter (mg/L) based on the known DOC extraction efficiency of the samples (ranging from ~30 to ~75%) compared to the common practice of assuming the DOC extraction efficiency of freshwater samples at 60%. This data package folder consists of one main data folder with one subfolder (Data_Input). The main data folder contains (1) readme; (2) data dictionary (dd); (3) file-level metadata (flmd); (4) final data summary output from processing script; and (5) the processing script. The R-markdown processing script (SPE_Manuscript_Rmarkdown_Data_Package.rmd) contains all code needed to reproduce manuscript statistics and figures (with the exception of that stated below). The Data_Input folder has two subfolders: (1) FTICR and (2) Optics. Additionally, the Data_Input folder contains dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data (SPS_NPOC_Summary.csv) and relevant supporting Solid Phase Extraction Volume information (SPS_SPE_Volumes.csv). Methods information for the optical and FTICR data is embedded in the header rows of SPS_EEMs_Methods.csv and SPS_FTICR_Methods.csv, respectively. In addition, the data dictionary (SPS_SPE_dd.csv), file level metadata (SPS_SPE_flmd.csv), and methods codes (SPS_SPE_Methods_codes.csv) are provided. The FTICR subfolder contains all raw FTICR data as well as instructions for processing. In addition, post processed FTICR molecular information (Processed_FTICRMS_Mol.csv) and sample data (Processed_FTICRMS_Data.csv) is provided that can be directly read into R with the associated R-markdown file. The Optics subfolder contains all Absorbance and Fluorescence Spectra. Fluorescence spectra have been blank corrected, inner filter corrected, and undergone scatter removal. In addition, this folder contains Matlab code used to make a portion of Figure 1 within the manuscript, derive various spectral parameters used within the manuscript, and used for parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC) modeling. Spectral indices (SPS_SpectralIndices.csv) and PARAFAC outputs (SPS_PARAFAC_Model_Loadings.csv and SPS_PARAFAC_Sample_Scores.csv) are directly read into the associated R-markdown file. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected some of these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

A Multi-Sensor Unoccupied Aerial System Improves Characterization of Vegetation Composition and Canopy Properties in the Arctic Tundra

Changes in vegetation distribution, structure, and function can modify the canopy properties of terrestrial ecosystems, with potential consequences for regional and global climate feedbacks. In the Arctic, climate is warming twice as fast as compared to the global average (known as ‘Arctic amplification’), likely having stronger impacts on arctic tundra vegetation. In order to quantify these changes and assess their impacts on ecosystem structure and function, methods are needed to accurately characterize the canopy properties of tundra vegetation types. However, commonly used ground-based measurements are limited in spatial and temporal coverage, and differentiating low-lying tundra plant species is challenging with coarse-resolution satellite remote sensing. The collection and processing of multi-sensor data from unoccupied aerial systems (UASs) has the potential to fill the gap between ground-based and satellite observations. To address the critical need for such data in the Arctic, we developed a cost-effective multi-sensor UAS (the ‘Osprey’) using off-the-shelf instrumentation. The Osprey simultaneously produces high-resolution optical, thermal, and structural images, as well as collecting point-based hyperspectral measurements, over vegetation canopies. In this paper, we describe the setup and deployment of the Osprey system in the Arctic to a tundra study site located in the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. We present a case study demonstrating the processing and application of Osprey data products for characterizing the key biophysical properties of tundra vegetation canopies. In this study, plant functional types (PFTs) representative of arctic tundra ecosystems were mapped with an overall accuracy of 87.4%. The Osprey image products identified significant differences in canopy-scale greenness, canopy height, and surface temperature among PFTs, with deciduous low to tall shrubs having the lowest canopy temperatures while non-vascular lichens had the warmest. The analysis of our hyperspectral data showed that variation in the fractional cover of deciduous low to tall shrubs was effectively characterized by Osprey reflectance measurements across the range of visible to near-infrared wavelengths. Therefore, the development and deployment of the Osprey UAS, as a state-of-the-art methodology, has the potential to be widely used for characterizing tundra vegetation composition and canopy properties to improve our understanding of ecosystem dynamics in the Arctic, and to address scale issues between ground-based and airborne/satellite observations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

On Alfvénic turbulence of solar wind streams observed by Solar Orbiter during March 2022 perihelion and their source regions

It has been recently accepted that the standard classification of the solar wind solely according to flow speed is outdated, and particular interest has been devoted to the study of the origin and evolution of so-called Alfvénic slow solar wind streams and to what extent such streams resemble or differ from fast wind. In March 2022, Solar Orbiter completed its first nominal phase perihelion passage. During this interval, it observed several Alfvénic streams, allowing for characterization of fluctuations in three slow wind intervals (AS1-AS3) and comparison with a fast wind stream (F) at almost the same heliocentric distance. This work makes use of Solar Orbiter plasma parameters from the Solar Wind Analyzer (SWA) and magnetic field measurements from the magnetometer (MAG). The magnetic connectivity to the solar sources of selected solar wind intervals was reconstructed using a ballistic extrapolation based on measured solar wind speed down to the (spherical) source surface at 2.5 R s below which a potential field extrapolation was used to map back to the Sun. The source regions were identified using SDO/AIA observations. A spectral analysis of in situ measured magnetic field and velocity fluctuations was performed to characterize correlations, Alfvénicity, normalized cross-helicity, and residual energy in the frequency domain as well as intermittency of the fluctuations and spectral energy transfer rate estimated via mixed third-order moments. A machine learning technique was used to separate proton core, proton beam, and alpha particles and to study v − b correlations for the different ion populations in order to evaluate the role played by each population in determining the Alfvénic content of solar wind fluctuations. The comparison between fast wind and Alfvénic slow wind intervals highlights the differences between the two solar wind regimes: The fast wind is characterized by larger amplitude fluctuations, and magnetic and velocity fluctuations are closer to equipartition of energy. In fact the Alfvénic slow wind streams appear to be on a spectrum of wind types, with AS1, originating from open field lines neighboring active regions and displaying similarities with the fast wind in terms of fluctuation amplitude and turbulence characteristics, but not with respect to the alpha particles and proton beams. The other two slow streams differed both in their sources as well as plasma characteristics, with AS2 coming from the expansion of a narrow coronal hole corridor and AS3 from a region straddling a pseudostreamer. The latter displayed the coldest and highest density but the slowest stream with the smallest fluctuation amplitude and greatest magnetic energy excess. It also showed the largest scatter in proton beam speeds and the greatest difference in speed between proton beam and alpha particles. This study shows how the old fast–slow solar wind dichotomy, already called into question by the observations of slower Alfvénic solar wind streams, should further be refined, as the Alfvénic slow wind, originating in different solar wind regions, show significant differences in density, temperature, and proton and alpha-particle properties in the inner heliosphere. The observations presented here provide the starting point for a better understanding of the origin and evolution of different solar wind streams as well as the evolving turbulence contained within.

magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)↗