SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “compliance monitoring”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

227 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2020

Oil and Natural Gas Development near and beneath Uranium Tailings Cells and Other Remediated Sites - 20358

DOE LM is responsible for maintaining remedies at more than 50 remediated sites that require active long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Institutional controls (ICs) were established to limit human and environmental exposures to residual contamination by controlling land use, restricting access to potential hazards, and making the public aware of potential dangers from the residual contamination. ICs for each site were developed based on current and foreseeable conditions; however, these controls should evolve to mitigate potential human health and other environmental risks from unanticipated changes in activities or site conditions. Activities conducted beyond the DOE long-term care boundaries by non-DOE parties may impact the effectiveness of ICs or even the long-term stability of disposal cells and groundwater remedies. Several sites that LM manages or that will transfer to LM for LTS and M are in active oil and gas production basins. The sites are associated with uranium ore milling or nuclear test sites and have been remediated or are in the process of remediation and have no ongoing DOE mission. Particularly since 2005, hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') combined with directional drilling has dramatically increased oil and natural gas (oil/gas) production in the United States, now making it the number one hydrocarbon-producing country. Fracking has allowed production from shale and other rocks of low natural permeability that were historically not considered viable oil/gas resources. Also, because wellbores can now be drilled as many as 5 kilometers or more horizontally, hydrocarbons can be recovered from zones without having access to the surface above them. Drilling activity near Rulison, Colorado, the location of an underground nuclear detonation managed by LM, has raised public concerns that remnant radioactivity in the detonation zone could migrate to producing wells and enter the natural gas distribution system. At sites like the Falls City, Texas, Disposal site, transitioned to LM with a split estate, increased production in the region has resulted in wellbores beneath the long-term care boundary of the site. While the DOE license for Falls City was approved by the NRC in 1997 without the acquisition of the subsurface rights, NRC has raised concerns on whether this activity impacts the integrity of the cell and/or groundwater remedies. In Wyoming, LM is anticipating receiving the license for the Bear Creek site and manages the Spook site, both locations of uranium mill tailings disposal cells. These Wyoming sites are in an active region of major oil and gas development. This change in surrounding land use will require LM to work collaboratively with NRC to address these concerns. At several DOE sites radioactive waste, and often intermixed nonradioactive constituents, is permanently isolated in engineered disposal cells. At other sites, residual contamination can be present in groundwater, blast cavities, and infinite amounts within soil. Areas targeted for oil and gas development at the Texas and Wyoming sites range from depths of 2440 to 3350 meters (8000-11000 feet) below ground surface. When most site remedies were designed, oil and gas development was not considered to be an issue within the site boundary. With the more recent uses of directional drilling, fracking, and associated wastewater injections, the evaluative criteria for incoming sites and ICs for managing long-term protectiveness and regulatory compliance are changing. Although DOE surface ownership was previously thought to be a robust IC to prevent surface and subsurface development, particularly at disposal sites, that may no longer be the case. Whereas the subsurface development at Texas and Wyoming sites is currently occurring at thousands of meters beneath the surface, shallower and direct onsite development would be more of a concern for LM. The energy introduced when a well is hydraulically fractured causes microseismic events (magnitude -2 to 1.0) as the fractures propagate but does not directly cause seismic events (earthquakes) of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures. Additionally, the extent of the hydraulic fractures is limited to the targeted depths, which are far below the surface. However, earthquakes of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures have been attributed to the injection of wastewater into disposal wells. States that have experienced these effects have enacted regulations that limit the rate and pressures that wastewater can be injected into disposal wells. Items LM may consider are the need for monitoring the volume of water injected into nearby disposal wells and possibly installing seismic stations at sites most susceptible to damage. While the need to demonstrate that no impact from oil and gas extraction activities on a site groundwater remedy or disposal cells will vary from site to site, LM is assessing risk criteria for this activity. Though LM has not experienced an issue yet at a uranium tailings disposal site, it cannot assume that there will be none, and must address NRC concerns. LM is building on past experiences at other sites and beginning to form new processes with the hope that these concepts can be applied for other future sites. (authors)

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Los Alamos National Laboratory Wetland Assessment for the Replacement Water Lines from Technical Area 48 to Technical Area 55 Project

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is proposing to take action at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) near a wetland at Technical Area (TA) 48 and under a wetland at TA-55. The project proposes to install two 12-inch water lines along an alignment from TA-48 to Pecos Road on the east side of TA-55 (Figure 1). The proposed water lines will replace aging cast iron pipes that provide water for fire suppression to buildings within TA-55, and potable water to other areas in the Pajarito Corridor. NNSA has prepared this wetland assessment in accordance with 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1022 Compliance with Wetland and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022) (CFR 2003) which was promulgated to implement DOE requirements under Executive Order 11988 Wetland Management (EO 1977). A wetland is defined in 10 CFR 1022 as “the lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and flood prone areas of offshore islands,” and a base wetland as “the 100-year wetland, that is, a wetland with a 1.0 percent chance of flooding in any given year (CFR 2003).” This wetland assessment evaluates potential impacts to wetland values and functions from implementation of the proposed action, identifies alternatives to the Proposed Action, and allows for meaningful public comment.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Los Alamos National Laboratory Floodplain Assessment for the Technical Area 8 to Technical Area 22 Natural Gas Line Replacement Project

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is proposing new construction that crosses through upper Pajarito Canyon and upper Starmer Canyon from Technical Area (TA) 8 to TA-22 at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The project proposes to install a new 12 inch natural gas line to replace the existing 70+ year old natural gas line. Replacement will prevent loss of service to several LANL TAs and Bandelier National Monument. The project activities within the 100- year floodplains include 1) new natural gas line installation to replace and existing aging gas line, 2) relocating a section of fence and 3) three construction equipment and materials storage areas. NNSA has prepared this floodplain assessment in accordance with 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1022 Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR Part 1022) (CFR 2003) which was promulgated to implement DOE requirements under Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management (EO 1977). A floodplain is defined in 10 CFR 1022 as “the lowlands adjoining inland and coastal waters and relatively flat areas and flood prone areas of offshore islands,” and a base floodplain as “the 100-year floodplain, that is, a floodplain with a 1.0 percent chance of flooding in any given year (CFR 2003).” This floodplain assessment evaluates potential impacts to floodplain values and functions from implementation of the proposed action, identifies alternatives to the Proposed Action, and allows for meaningful public comment.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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

Using in-situ strain measurements to evaluate the accuracy of stress estimation procedures from fracture injection/shut-in tests

Fracture injection/shut-in tests are commonly used to measure the state of stress. Injection creates a hydraulic fracture (or in some cases, opens a preexisting fracture), and then the pressure after shut-in is monitored to identify fracture closure. Different interpretation procedures have been proposed for estimating closure, and the procedures sometimes yield significantly different results. In this study, direct, in-situ strain measurements are used to observe fracture reopening and closure. The tests were performed as part of the EGS Collab project, a mesoscale project performed at 1.25 and 1.5 km depth at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. The tests were instrumented with the SIMFIP tool, a double-packer probe with a high-resolution three-dimensional borehole displacement sensor. The measurements provide a direct observation of the fracture closure signature, enabling a high-fidelity estimate of the fracture closure stress (ie, the normal stress on the fracture). In two of the four tests, injection created an opening mode fracture, and so the closure stress can be interpreted as the minimum principal stress. In the other two tests, injection probably opened preexisting natural fractures, and so the closure stress can be interpreted as the normal stress on the fractures. The strain measurements are compared against different proposed methods for estimating closure stress from pressure transients. The shut-in transients are analyzed with two techniques that are widely used in the field of petroleum engineering – the ‘tangent’ method and the ‘compliance’ method. In three of the four tests, the tangent method significantly underestimates the closure stress. The compliance method is reasonably accurate in all four tests. Closure stress is also interpreted using two other commonly-used methods – ‘first deviation from linearity’ and the method of Hayashi and Haimson. In comparison with the SIMFIP data, these methods tend to overestimate the closure stress, evidently because they identify closure from early-time transient effects, such as near-wellbore tortuosity. In two of the tests, microseismic imaging provides an independent estimate of the size of the fracture created by injection. When combined with a simple mass balance calculation, the SIMFIP stress measurements yield predictions of fracture size that are reasonably consistent with the estimates from microseismic. In conclusion, the calculations imply an apparent fracture toughness 2-3x higher than typical laboratory-derived values.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Conceptual Designs for Irradiation Creep Testing of SiC in HFIR

Understanding irradiation creep of nuclear fuel cladding is important to properly size the initial fuel-cladding gap and understand when pellet-cladding contact is expected to occur due to a combination of fuel swelling and cladding creep-down. Irradiation creep also plays a role in relaxing stresses that develop in-pile. Silicon carbide fiber–reinforced silicon carbide matrix (SiC/SiC) composites are the leading long-term accident-tolerant fuel cladding concept for light-water reactors (LWRs). Although some limited data are available regarding irradiation creep of the individual constituents (fibers, matrix), data regarding irradiation creep of SiC/SiC composites are currently insufficient. Additional data regarding irradiation creep compliance and the rupture lifetime (combination of creep and slow crack growth) are needed to understand material limitations. This work describes the design and development of two irradiation vehicles that are being pursued for testing SiC/SiC concepts in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR). The first is a passive experiment, referred to as the PRECISE experiment, that leverages the constant coolant pressure of HFIR to compress a metallic bellows and provide a well-characterized load to drive creep in a SiC/SiC dog bone specimen. The total creep strain would be quantified post-irradiation by measuring dimensional changes of the specimen length as well as local dimensional changes within the gauge region. Non-stressed specimens would also be irradiated under the same conditions to provide an indication of dimensional changes due to radiation-induced swelling in the absence of creep. A second, more complex experiment, referred to as the INSITE experiment, is being designed in parallel that would use pneumatics to pressurize a metal bellows and linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) to measure the specimen displacement in situ during irradiation. Such an experiment would provide significantly more data regarding the evolution of the creep compliance as a function of dose and applied stress within a single experiment but would require significantly more development time and cost to execute. The primary concern with the INSITE experiment is the accuracy, reliability, and expected lifetime of the LVDTs during irradiation at elevated temperatures. Efforts are being made to adjust the experiment design and operating procedure to limit LVDT temperatures and mitigate or otherwise compensate for uncertainties due to factors such as temperature fluctuations, creep in the surrounding structural materials, and drift of the LVDTs. This work describes the experiment designs, thermal and structural analysis that were performed to ensure that the desired temperature and stress conditions can be achieved, some initial sensitivity analyses to predict the evolution of the radiation-induced specimen displacements, and potential sources of uncertainty in the measurements. Out-of-pile testing is being performed in parallel to confirm that the test trains achieve the expected stress states in the specimens and do not result in prohibitive stress concentrators (e.g., in the grip regions) that might risk pre-mature failure. The PRECISE experiments are proceeding toward fabrication and assembly with HFIR insertion planned during fiscal year 2026. The INSITE experiment is progressing toward out-of-pile demonstrations, which will provide more conclusive evidence regarding the feasibility of executing these tests in HFIR or whether alternative displacement monitoring techniques may need to be considered.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

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 OSTI2023

Spatio-temporal and weather characterization of road loads of electrified heavy-duty commercial vehicles across U.S. interstate roads

Adoption of battery electric vehicles (BEV) in heavy duty (HD) commercial freight transportation is difficult due to technological and economic hurdles. Beyond safety and compliance, fleet and operational logistics necessitate both high uptime and parity with diesel system productivity/Total Cost of Ownership to support widespread deployment of electric powertrains. However, relatively high energy storage costs, along with the higher weight of BEV systems, limit the viability of HD commercial freight transport to shorter-range applications where smaller batteries will serve for mission energy requirements (single operational shift). Knowing the energy consumption and operating variations of these commercial vehicle systems is crucial for effectively sizing the energy storage systems. This paper is the first in a series of studies to understand the regional specific operating design domain variations of commercial Class 8 HD trucks and the associated impact to their energy requirements. In particular, the local weather conditions are shown to influence the total vehicle energy usage. Further, the impact of temperature, pressure, and humidity changes are shown to impact the local air density. This is needed to calculate aerodynamic drag on vehicles and has been found to play a significant role in the overall performance of a vehicle. Although the methodology of calculating air density varies only slightly throughout the literature, the application to transportation has still been limited. This study provides a means by which air density can be estimated for the contiguous U.S. using the NOAA MADIS dataset. These air density estimates were then used to determine vehicle performance in varying regions of the country to highlight the importance of consideration of weather variables when monitoring vehicle performance, but also to provide recommendations based on these locales upon fleet conversion to BEVs.

Moore, Amy↗

DOE OSTI2022

Strengthening the Security of Operational Technology: Understanding Contemporary Bill of Materials

The evolution of cyber-physical infrastructure has made its security more challenging. The last few years have witnessed a convergence of hardware and software segments in various domains, including operational technology (OT) which is responsible for carrying out critical tasks such as monitoring and controlling power grids, nuclear plants, transportation, and emergency services. Both hardware and software encapsulate numerous open source and proprietary subcomponents, making it crucial for end-users to understand the composition of the products they are using. For example, wind turbines incorporate thousands of lines of code (software) used for the turbine's design, planning, operation, and analytics in addition to the numerous hardware subcomponents that construct it. Due to the highly complex nature of software and hardware, knowledge of the components and subcomponents is required to mitigate cyber vulnerabilities and defend against cyberattacks. There has also been a transformation from a traditional linear supply chain into a global, dynamic, diverse, and interconnected system. The digitization of the supply chain makes it easier to find and exploit vulnerabilities. Critical infrastructures (e.g., power grids, oil, natural gas, water, and wastewater) rely on OT to function, and if the OT is compromised, equipment damage and potential interruption of services could result. A significant security measure to protect OT systems from disruption is to develop a supply chain bill of materials (BoM) corresponding to the software and hardware used in OT, along with attestations amongst vendors and asset owners. A supply chain BoM is a proactive way to understand the inherent vulnerabilities in the system and mitigate them in advance of being exploited. BoMs bolster the trust placed in the digital infrastructure and enhance software supply chain security by sustaining the management of component obsolescence and compliance, along with the seclusion of unsafe segments of a specific product. Adopting BoM tools is becoming increasingly important across various government sectors, as evidenced by the recent U.S. executive order on cybersecurity (NIST 2021). This paper aims to classify BoMs based on structure, functionality, component type, and architecture. The work also discusses case studies to further highlight the benefits of BoMs. In addition, it identifies missing pieces in existing BoM implementations so that future research may identify bounds on where it could expect to make improvements and directly enable researchers to identify promising areas for exploration. Further, the authors provide valuable recommendations to tool developers, researchers, and standardizing organizations (policymakers), additionally benefitting critical infrastructure owners and government executives. This aids in paving a path for future work, thereby, providing suggestions to determine a tool for consumers that best suit their needs.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Thermal aging effects on crosslinked polyethylene cable insulation with decabromodiphenyl ether flame retardant alternative

Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) has been extensively used as a flame retardant in several applications, including nuclear electrical cable insulation. However, decaBDE has been identified as a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substance, leading to regulatory scrutiny. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a regulation on January 6, 2021, aimed at phasing out the manufacturing, processing, and distribution of decaBDE. This rule set a compliance deadline of March 8, 2021, for the manufacture and processing of decaBDE, and an extended deadline of January 6, 2023, for specific applications including wire and cable insulation in nuclear power generation facilities. In response to such regulations, RSCC, a major supplier of safety-related electrical cables and associated products to the U.S. nuclear industry updated the formula of their crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) insulation to replace the historically used decaBDE flame retardant with an acceptable alternative. This change from the previous decaBDE-containing XLPE prompted interest in comparative performance of the two material formulations, especially with respect to characteristics relevant to safety-related function such as thermal and radiation resistance. RSCC graciously provided samples of wire insulated with the decaBDE-containing XLPE formulation and corresponding wire insulated with XLPE of the new formulation, containing a decaBDE alternative. In this work we compare characteristics of the two formulations and a previously produced commercial version of the RSCC decaBDE-containing XLPE insulation subjected to thermal aging at 150 °C and 165 °C. The comparison was focused on mechanical durability, thermal stability in the oxidative environment, and chemical structures. Briefly, • Tensile elongation at break (EAB) results showed loss of mechanical elasticity with longer aging time, as expected. Aging time dependence of EAB did not differ between the decaBDE-containing and decaBDE-alternative samples. • Subtle differences between the two materials can be detected from Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) absorbance spectra in the range below 1700 cm -1 , are assumed to be related to decomposition of flame retardant additives during thermal aging. • The oxidation induction time (OIT) data seemed to show that the unaged decaBDE-containing XLPE material is more thermally stable than the unaged decaBDE-alternative material, but the discrepancy in OIT decreased with aging time and the OIT values of the two materials became similar starting with the 4 th day of aging at 165 °C. This thermal aging investigation confirmed that the mechanical durability, a key property monitored for cable qualification, was not significantly affected by the modification of the formulation with a decaBDE alternative flame-retardant system in the investigated thermal aging conditions. Further studies on the same sets of materials exposed to thermal and gamma radiation aging would further inform comparison of the materials safety-related function.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗