Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Nuclear material accountability”

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.

491 records · Page 28
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2020

VADER: A Tool for Criticality Safety Validation

The purpose of criticality safety is to prevent any inadvertent criticality from occurring during the handling or storage of fissile material. Calculations are frequently used to demonstrate that a sufficient subcritical margin exists. Validation is a key aspect of the evaluation process, establishing the suitability, accuracy, and associated uncertainty of the computational method and data to be used for the intended application. The validation process is performed by comparing the results of critical experiments with the calculated results from models of the experiments using the computational method to be validated. Laboratory critical experiments are controlled systems that achieve a k eff of approximately 1 in order to investigate the parameters at which such a critical condition is achieved. The validation parameters that are traditionally applied to safety analysis calculations are the bias and the bias uncertainty . The bias is the deviation of the average k eff of the validation suite from unity. The bias uncertainty accounts for the statistical uncertainty in the bias based on the standard deviation, sample size, and distribution of k eff values of the validation suite. The values of bias and bias uncertainty ensure that the systems predicted to be subcritical by the computational method will indeed be subcritical. The bias and bias uncertainty are often combined to determine an upper subcritical limit (USL) or computational margin that can then be applied to safety analysis calculations. Many methods have been developed by different organizations to calculate the bias and bias uncertainty for various types of criticality analyses. Each of these methods typically requires that the validity of various underpinning statistical assumptions be confirmed to demonstrate that the method is appropriate for the analysis of a given validation suite. An example of the validation decision making flow is shown in Fig.1. As shown in Fig. 1, the analyst performing the validation fits a trend line to the data and performs a test to determine if the trend was a statistically better representation of the data than if it were treated as an uncorrelated sample. If the trend line is a better representation of the data, then the analyst uses any one of a number of trending techniques to determine the bias and bias uncertainty. If a trend is not an appropriate representation of the data, then the analyst proceeds to perform a normality assessment for the data. If the normal assumption can be shown to be acceptable, then the analyst calculates the bias and bias uncertainty with the parametric technique. If the assumption of normality cannot be justified, then the nonparametric technique is used. Once the decision flow has been followed and the appropriate technique has been selected, the bias and bias uncertainty is typically combined with an administrative margin to determine a USL below which calculated values of k eff for safety analysis models can be considered subcritical. The calculations used in each decision are often performed with spreadsheets or with small programs available at various sites performing criticality analyses. Expertise in understanding and interpreting the results must be maintained to perform these calculations. This can often be an error-prone process. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is currently developing the Validation and Data Evaluation Resource (VADER) to simplify and automate the criticality safety validation process and to provide a software quality assurance pedigree to the calculational methods used. This paper discusses the use of the Fulcrum user interface with VADER, the anticipated initial capabilities of VADER to perform validation analyses, and the output from the code.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Distribution Development for the RDX Regional Model at Los Alamos National Laboratory - 20385

Representing uncertainty in model inputs often means finding a balance between uncertainty and physical reality. Developing wide distributions may seem conservative in principle, but this approach may lead to unrealistic model results. Characterizing the current state of knowledge of stochastic inputs presents many challenges, especially if the data available are limited or have limited relevance to the site. Relationships among these inputs may also be important to represent but are typically complex or difficult to define. Often special adjustments must be made to account for reduced credibility in particular data. If parameters are strongly related to one another, a correlation structure may be developed for input to the model. Other techniques such as regression models may be used to incorporate relationships between the information available and the desired parameters. The process of developing distributions must consider details of the model in terms of what the distribution is meant to represent. This paper uses the example of a probabilistic fate and transport model for hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) in the regional aquifer at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). For many parameters, a single draw is applied to all space and time over which the model is run, for a single iteration. This simplification is often made for many reasons, and can often be beneficial, but also adds additional complexity in the distribution development process. Defining the distributional goals as they relate to the modeling process is an important step, which should take place prior to evaluation of the data. Usually, the distributions developed are meant to characterize the average value of the parameter over the spatial and temporal domain of the model. Distribution development requires consideration of many sources of information on the parameter where available, ideally from multiple references. Examples of different sources include data from different references but also from different conditions, measurement methods, or experimental types. Depending on these conditions and the reliability or relevance of particular references, different sources of data may each contribute valuable information but have varying relevance to the site. In these cases, weighting data unequally is a useful way to incorporate this information. As an example, aqueous dispersivity data are available for a variety of rock types. Only a few values are available for the desired rock type, and this is not enough to develop a distribution. Therefore, dispersivity values from other rock types are included in distribution development but are down-weighted such that the best data have the most influence on the distribution developed. In another case, K{sub d} distributions in the model are meant to represent a known composition of multiple soil types. Data from these materials are weighted accordingly to develop a distribution for the weighted average K{sub d} across soil types. Other cases include varying reliability of different sources, and weighting data according to the confidence in these sources. In some cases, input parameters are correlated with one another. An example is advective porosity, which is positively correlated with total porosity and must be less than total porosity. Paired data with both parameters must exist to discern the relationship between the two parameters and if it is necessary to build a correlation structure into the model. In general, correlated parameters may be represented in the model by a multivariate distribution, or perhaps more desirably, capturing the correlation within the developed distributions which may be treated as independent from one another. In the example of porosity, this can be done by transforming advective porosity into a proportion of total porosity which may be drawn independently from the distribution of total porosity. This paper explores how complex data and correlations can be incorporated to meet the distributional goals of the model, using the RDX regional model as a detailed example. (authors)

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

Use of Historical EM Practices and Policies for Management of Cleanup Program and Address GAO Concerns - 20222

As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

The Belle II Physics Book

The Belle II-Theory interface Platform (B2TiP) was created as a physics prospects working group of the Belle II collaboration in June 2014. It offered a platform where theorists and experimentalists work together to elucidate the potential impacts of the Belle II program, which includes a wide scope of physics topics: B physics, charm, τ, quarkonium physics, electroweak precision measurements and dark sector searches. It is composed of nine working groups (WGs), which are coordinated by teams of theory and experiment conveners: WG1) Semileptonic and leptonic B decays, WG2) Radiative and Electroweak penguins, WG3) φ1 and φ2 (time-dependent CP violation) measurements, WG4) φ3 measurement, WG5) Charmless hadronic B decay, WG6) Charm, WG7) Quarkonium(like), WG8) τ and lowmultiplicity processes, WG9) New Physics. We organised workshops twice a year from 2014 until 2016, which moved from KEK in Japan to Europe and the Americas, gathering experts in the respective fields to discuss with Belle II members. One of the goals for B2TiP was to propose so-called “golden- and silver-channels”: we asked each working group to choose among numerous possible measurements, those that would have the highest potential impact and to focus on them for the writeup. Theorists scrutinised the role of those measurements in terms of understanding the theory behind them, and estimated the theoretical uncertainties, now achievable as well as prospects for the future. For flavour physics, having tight control of hadronic uncertainties is one of the most crucial aspects in the field, and this is considered as an important criteria to determine the golden or silver-channels. Experimentalists, on the other hand, investigated the expected improvements with data from Belle II. For the channels where the errors are dominated by statistical uncertainties, or where systematic errors are reducible, the errors can decrease rapidly as more data becomes available. The impact of the upgraded performance from Belle II is a crucial element for reducing the uncertainties: we therefore include the latest available studies of the detector efficiency using Monte Carlo simulated events. We list the golden(silver)-channel table in this first chapter, as a guide for the chapters that follow. The book is not a collection of reports based on talks given at the workshops. The working group conveners endeavoured to construct a coherent document that can be used by Belle II collaborators, and others in the field of flavour physics, as a reference. There were two books of a similar type written in the past, “The BaBar book” [1] and “The Physics of the B factories” [2]. In order to avoid too much repetition with respect to those references, we refer to them as possible for introductory material. We would like to thank the section editors and contributing authors for the many stimulating discussions and their tremendous effort to bring the book together.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗