Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Execution Plan”

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 613 records · Page 34

Analysis of Factors that Influence Infiltration Rates using the HELP Model

The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model is used by Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) in conjunction with PORFLOW groundwater flow simulation software to make longterm predictions of the fate and transport of radionuclides in the environment at radiological waste sites. The work summarized in this report supports preparation of the planned 2018 Performance Assessment for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (LLWF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). More specifically, this project focused on conducting a sensitivity analysis of infiltration (i.e., the rate at which water travels vertically in soil) through the proposed E-Area LLWF closure cap. A sensitivity analysis was completed using HELP v3.95D to identify the cap design and material property parameters that most impact infiltration rates through the proposed closure cap for a 10,000-year simulation period. The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) for select cap layers, precipitation rate, surface vegetation type, and geomembrane layer defect density are dominant factors limiting infiltration rate. Interestingly, calculated infiltration rates were substantially influenced by changes in the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the Upper Foundation and Lateral Drainage layers. For example, an order-of-magnitude decrease in Ksat for the Upper Foundation layer lowered the maximum infiltration rate from a base-case 11 inches per year to only two inches per year. Conversely, an order-of-magnitude increase in Ksat led to an increase in infiltration rate from 11 to 15 inches per year. This work and its results provide a framework for quantifying uncertainty in the radionuclide transport and dose models for the planned 2018 E-Area Performance Assessment. Future work will focus on the development of a nonlinear regression model for infiltration rate using Minitab 17® to facilitate execution of probabilistic simulations in the GoldSim® overall system model for the E-Area LLWF.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding of Effect, and Mitigation Documentation for the Main Gate (23-GS100), Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to replace the existing guard shack at the Main Gate (23-GS100, Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. S1758) to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The purpose of the project is to improve security. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. The Main Gate is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria, prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. Thus, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the Main Gate as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that the Main Gate is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under SOI Significance Criterion A at the national level of significance for its direct, important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1965 (the date the current Main Gate was constructed) through 1992 (when critical nuclear testing on the NNSS ceased).

23-GS100↗

Roll-to-Roll Advanced Materials Manufacturing DOE Laboratory Collaboration (FY2020 Final Report)

R2R processing is used to manufacture a wide range of products for various applications which span many industrial business sectors. The overall R2R methodology has been in use for decades and this continuous technique traditionally involves deposition of material(s) onto moving webs, carriers or other continuous belt-fed or conveyor-based processes that enable successive steps to build a final version which serves to support the deposited materials. Established methods that typify R2R processing include tape casting, silk-screen printing, reel-to-reel vacuum deposition/coating, and R2R lithography. Products supported by R2R manufacturing include micro-electronics, electro-chromic window films, PVs, fuel cells for energy conversion, battery electrodes for energy storage, and barrier and membrane materials. Due to innovation in materials and process equipment, high-quality yet very low-cost multilayer technologies have the potential to be manufactured on a very cost-competitive basis. To move energy-related products from high-cost niche applications to the commercial sector, the means must be available to enable manufacture of these products in a cost-competitive manner that is affordable. Fortunately, products such as fuel cells, thin- and mid-film PVs, batteries, electrochromic and piezoelectric films, water separation membranes, and other energy saving technologies readily lend themselves to manufacture using R2R approaches. However, more early-stage research is needed to solve the challenge of linking the materials (particles, polymers, solvents, additives) used in ink and slurry formulations and the coating and drying processes to the ultimate performance of the final R2R product, especially for a process that uses multiple layers of deposition to achieve the end product. To solve the problems associated with these challenges, the R2R Collaboration is executing a research program with outcomes that will ultimately link modeling, processing, metrology and defect detection tools, thereby directly relating the properties of constituent particles and processing conditions to the performance of final devices. This collaborative approach was designed to foster identification and development of materials and processes related to R2R for clean-energy materials development. Using computational and experimental capabilities by acknowledged subject matter experts within the supported National Laboratory system, this project leverages the capabilities and expertise at each of five National Laboratories to further the development of multilayer technologies that will enable high-volume, cost-competitive platforms. A typical R2R process has three steps: (1) mixing of particles and various constituents in a slurry, (2) coating of the ink/slurry mixture on a substrate, and (3) drying/curing and processing of the coating. Final performance of devices made via R2R processes is dependent on the active materials (e.g., electrochemical particles in battery or fuel cell electrodes) and the device structure that stems from the governing component interactions within the various steps. However, a fundamental understanding of the underlying mechanisms and phenomena is still lacking, which is why industrial-scale R2R process development and manufacturing is still largely empirical in nature. The FY 2019 through FY 2021 program addresses aspects of the following two targets from the AMO Multi-Year Program Plan: (1) Target 8.1 Develop technologies to reduce the cost per manufactured throughput of continuous R2R manufacturing processes. (A) Increasing throughput of R2R processes by 5 times for batteries (to 50 square feet per minute (50 ft 2 /min)) and capacitors and 10 times for printed electronics and the manufacture of other substrates and MEs used in support of these products. (B) Developing resolution capabilities to enable registration and alignment that will detect, align, and co-deposit multiple layers of coatings and print < 1-micron (1 µm) features using continuous process scalable for commercial production. (C) Developing scalable and reliable R2R processes for solution deposition of ultra-thin (<10 nm) films for active and passive materials. (D) Develop in-line multilayer coating technology on thin films with yields greater than 95%. (2) Target 8.2 Develop in-line instrumentation tools that will evaluate the quality of single and multilayer materials in-process. (A) Developing in-line QC technologies and methodologies for real-time identification of defects and expected product properties “in-use/application” during continuous processing at all size-scales with a focus on the “micro” and “nano” scale traces, lines, and devices, i.e., <1 μm at 300 ft./min for R2R processing in air and <10 nm at 20 ft./min for vacuum (B) Developing technologies to increase the measurement frequency of surface rheology without significant cost increases with a goal of a 10-nanometer in-line profilometry at a production rate of 100,000 square millimeters per minute (100,000 mm 2 /min).

42 ENGINEERING↗

Evaluation of Building 23-702, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory H-8 Foil Handling Building, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-702, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) H-8 Foil Handling Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15278) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. As part of the modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement Between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-702 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-702 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-702 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2016 Wind Technologies Market Report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Wind Technologies Market Report provides an annual overview of trends in the U.S. wind power market. You can find the report, a presentation, and a data file on the Files tab, below. Additionally, several data visualizations are available in the Data Visualizations tab. Highlights of this year’s report include: -Wind power additions continued at a rapid clip in 2016: $13 billion was invested in new wind power plants in 2016. In 2016, wind energy contributed 5.6% of the nation’s electricity supply, more than 10% of total electricity generation in fourteen states, and 29% to 37% in three of those states—Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas. -Bigger turbines are enhancing wind project performance: Increased blade lengths, in particular, have dramatically increased wind project capacity factors, one measure of project performance. For example, the average 2016 capacity factor among projects built in 2014 and 2015 was 42.6%, compared to an average of 32.1% among projects built from 2004 to 2011 and 25.4% among projects built from 1998 to 2001. -Low wind turbine pricing continues to push down installed project costs: Wind turbine prices have fallen from their highs in 2008, to $800–$1,100/kW. Overall, the average installed cost of wind projects in 2016 was $1,590/kW, down $780/kW from the peak in 2009 and 2010. -Wind energy prices remain low: After topping out at nearly 7¢/kWh for power purchase agreements (PPAs) executed in 2009, the national average price of wind PPAs has dropped to around 2¢/kWh—though this nationwide average is dominated by projects that hail from the lowest-priced Interior region of the country (such as Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma). These prices, which are possible in part due to federal tax support, compare favorably to the projected future fuel costs of gas-fired generation. -The supply chain continued to adjust to swings in domestic demand for wind equipment: Wind sector employment reached a new high of more than 101,000 full-time workers at the end of 2016. For wind projects recently installed in the U.S., domestically manufactured content is highest for nacelle assembly (>90%), towers (65-80%), and blades and hubs (50-70%), but is much lower (<20%) for most components internal to the turbine. -Continued strong growth in wind capacity is anticipated in the near term: With federal tax incentives still available, though declining, various forecasts for the domestic market show expected wind power capacity additions averaging more than 9,000 MW/year from 2017 to 2020.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Laboratory

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success of the Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-loop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of"pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS. The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (1) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multi-sensor series of trajectories.

Brewster, L.↗

Multi-Sensor Testing for Automated Rendezvous and Docking Sensor Testing at the Flight Robotics Lab

The Exploration Systems Architecture defines missions that require rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking (RPOD) of two spacecraft both in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). Uncrewed spacecraft must perform automated and/or autonomous rendezvous, proximity operations and docking operations (commonly known as AR&D). The crewed missions may also perform rendezvous and docking operations and may require different levels of automation and/or autonomy, and must provide the crew with relative navigation information for manual piloting. The capabilities of the RPOD sensors are critical to the success ofthe Exploration Program. NASA has the responsibility to determine whether the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) contractor-proposed relative navigation sensor suite will meet the requirements. The relatively low technology readiness level of AR&D relative navigation sensors has been carried as one of the CEV Project's top risks. The AR&D Sensor Technology Project seeks to reduce the risk by the testing and analysis of selected relative navigation sensor technologies through hardware-in-the-Ioop testing and simulation. These activities will provide the CEV Project information to assess the relative navigation sensors maturity as well as demonstrate test methods and capabilities. The first year of this project focused on a series of "pathfinder" testing tasks to develop the test plans, test facility requirements, trajectories, math model architecture, simulation platform, and processes that will be used to evaluate the Contractor-proposed sensors. Four candidate sensors were used in the first phase of the testing. The second phase of testing used four sensors simultaneously: two Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Video Guidance Sensors (AVGS), a laser-based video sensor that uses retroreflectors attached to the target vehicle, and two commercial laser range finders. The multi-sensor testing was conducted at MSFC's Flight Robotics Laboratory (FRL) using the FRL's 6-DOF gantry system, called the Dynamic Overhead Target System (DOTS). The target vehicle for "docking" in the laboratory was a mockup that was representative of the proposed CEV docking system, with added retroreflectors for the AVGS.' The multi-sensor test configuration used 35 open-loop test trajectories covering three major objectives: (l) sensor characterization trajectories designed to test a wide range of performance parameters; (2) CEV-specific trajectories designed to test performance during CEV-like approach and departure profiles; and (3) sensor characterization tests designed for evaluating sensor performance under more extreme conditions as might be induced during a spacecraft failure or during contingency situations. This paper describes the test development, test facility, test preparations, test execution, and test results of the multisensor series oftrajectories

Brewster, Linda L.↗

Industrial Carbon Capture from a Cement Facility Using the Cryocap™ FG Process

The objective of the project was to execute and complete front-end engineering and design (FEED) studies for commercial-scale, carbon capture projects that separate 95% of the total CO 2 emissions at an industrial facility, producing at least 100,000 metric tonnes/year of CO 2 for sequestration. The industrial facility selected is the Holcim (US) Ste. Genevieve cement manufacturing facility (the largest single kiln line in the world), while the carbon capture system selected is Pressure Swing Adsorption system (PSA) assisted Cryocap™ technology developed by Air Liquide. The industrial host site emits approximately 3 million tonnes CO 2 /year based on plant data from 2020-2022. The captured CO 2 will meet the requirements of transport (Pipeline Grade) and geological storage, and the geological storage facilities within 80 miles of the CO 2 source. The impact of the project on Environmental Justice and the regional economy was also analyzed.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

MO-G-BRE-01: A Real-Time Virtual Delivery System for Photon Radiotherapy Delivery Monitoring

Purpose: Treatment delivery monitoring is important for radiotherapy, which enables catching dosimetric error at the earliest possible opportunity. This project develops a virtual delivery system to monitor the dose delivery process of photon radiotherapy in real-time using GPU-based Monte Carlo (MC) method. Methods: The simulation process consists of 3 parallel CPU threads. A thread T1 is responsible for communication with a linac, which acquires a set of linac status parameters, e.g. gantry angles, MLC configurations, and beam MUs every 20 ms. Since linac vendors currently do not offer interface to acquire data in real time, we mimic this process by fetching information from a linac dynalog file at the set frequency. Instantaneous beam fluence map (FM) is calculated. A FM buffer is also created in T1 and the instantaneous FM is accumulated to it. This process continues, until a ready signal is received from thread T2 on which an inhouse developed MC dose engine executes on GPU. At that moment, the accumulated FM is transferred to T2 for dose calculations, and the FM buffer in T1 is cleared. Once the calculation finishes, the resulting 3D dose distribution is directed to thread T3, which displays it in three orthogonal planes overlaid on the CT image for treatment monitoring. This process continues to monitor the 3D dose distribution in real-time. Results: An IMRT and a VMAT cases used in our patient-specific QA are studied. Maximum dose differences between our system and treatment planning system are 0.98% and 1.58% for the two cases, respectively. The average time per MC calculation is 0.1sec with <2% relative uncertainty. The update frequency of ∼10Hz is considered as real time. Conclusion: By embedding a GPU-based MC code in a novel data/work flow, it is possible to achieve real-time MC dose calculations to monitor delivery process.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

M3SF-24LL010302062-NEA-TDB Management and International Collaborations in Sorption and Thermodynamic Modeling

This progress report (Level 3 Milestone Number M3SF-24LL010302062) summarizes research conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within the Crystalline International Collaborations Work Package Number SF-24LL01030206. The activity is focused on our long-term commitment to engaging our partners in international nuclear waste repository research. This includes participation in the Nuclear Energy Agency Thermochemical Database (NEA-TDB) Project and development of methodologies for integrating US and international thermodynamic databases for use in SFWST Generic Disposal System Assessment (GDSA) efforts. A continuing focus for FY24 efforts is to support the US participation in the NEA-TDB effort. The focus of FY24 activities was the development of an agreement for a Phase 7 activity that will start in Q1 of 2025. Mavrik Zavarin is now the US representative on both the Management Board and the Executive group to the NEA-TDB. He is also the POC for the Cements State of the Art Report that is undergoing peer review in FY24. In FY24, we used our position on the NEA-TDB MB and EG to facilitate the integration of NEA-TDB thermochemical data with LLNL’s SUPCRTNE thermodynamic database that supports the SFWST GDSA activities. This effort is coordinated with the Argillite work package SUPCRTNE database development efforts (Wolery, 2024). The goal is to provide a downloadable database that will be hosted on LLNL’s thermodynamics website which incorporates NEA-TDB data into the LLNL database where appropriate. We also began engagement with the EURAD2 program that was initiated in FY24 by our European collaborators at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany. The primary focus of the engagement is with WP20: DITUSC Thermodynamic database evaluation program. A kickoff meeting for this activity is planned for early FY25. Finally, we have been selected to co-host (with Clemson University) the International Conference on Chemistry and Migration Behaviour of Actinides and Fission Products in the Geosphere in 2025 (Migration2025). The meeting will be held September 21-26, 2025, in New Orleans, Louisiana, and will focus on international efforts to understand the risks of radionuclide releases into the environment. This central focus of this conference is on international efforts to develop safe disposal options for nuclear wastes. As such, we are developing a theme focused on US underground nuclear waste repository science.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

National facilities study. Volume 3: Mission and requirements model report

The National Facility Study (NFS) was initiated in 1992 by Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator of NASA as an initiative to develop a comprehensive and integrated long-term plan for future facilities. The resulting, multi-agency NFS consisted of three Task Groups: Aeronautics, Space Operations, and Space Research and Development (R&D) Task Groups. A fourth group, the Engineering and Cost Analysis Task Group, was subsequently added to provide cross-cutting functions, such as assuring consistency in developing an inventory of space facilities. Space facilities decisions require an assessment of current and future needs. Therefore, the two task groups dealing with space developed a consistent model of future space mission programs, operations and R&D. The model is a middle ground baseline constructed for NFS analytical purposes with excursions to cover potential space program strategies. The model includes three major sectors: DOD, civilian government, and commercial space. The model spans the next 30 years because of the long lead times associated with facilities development and usage. This document, Volume 3 of the final NFS report, is organized along the following lines: Executive Summary -- provides a summary view of the 30-year mission forecast and requirements baseline, an overview of excursions from that baseline that were studied, and organization of the report; Introduction -- provides discussions of the methodology used in this analysis; Baseline Model -- provides the mission and requirements model baseline developed for Space Operations and Space R&D analyses; Excursions from the baseline -- reviews the details of variations or 'excursions' that were developed to test the future program projections captured in the baseline; and a Glossary of Acronyms.

Source record↗

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding Of Effect, And Mitigation Documentation For Building 23-109, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-109, the Mercury Fire Station/Maintenance/Housing Office (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15235) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-109 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-109 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-109 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains some aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2017 Wind Technologies Market Report

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Wind Technologies Market Report provides an annual overview of trends in the U.S. wind power market. Highlights of this year’s report include: -Wind power capacity additions continued at a rapid pace in 2017: $11 billion was invested in new wind power plants in 2017. In 2017, wind energy contributed 6.3% of the nation’s electricity supply, more than 10% of total electricity generation in fourteen states, and more than 30% in four of those states—Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. -Bigger turbines are enhancing wind project performance: Increased blade lengths have dramatically increased wind project capacity factors, one measure of project performance, and taller towers appear to be on the horizon. The average 2017 capacity factor among projects built from 2014 through 2016 was 42%, compared to an average of 31.5% among projects built from 2004 to 2011 and 23.5% among projects built from 1998 to 2001. -Low wind turbine pricing continues to push down installed project costs: Wind turbine prices have fallen from their highs in 2008 to $750–$950/kW. Overall, the average installed cost of wind projects in 2017 was $1,610/kW, down $795/kW from the peak in 2009 and 2010. -Wind energy prices remain low: After topping out at 7¢/kWh for power purchase agreements (PPAs) executed in 2009, the national average price of wind PPAs has dropped to around 2¢/kWh—though this nationwide average is dominated by projects that hail from the lowest-priced Interior region of the country (such as Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas). These prices, which are possible in part due to federal tax support, compare favorably to the projected future fuel costs of gas-fired generation. -The domestic supply chain for wind equipment is diverse: Wind sector employment reached a new high of more than 105,000 full-time workers at the end of 2017. For wind projects recently installed in the U.S., domestically manufactured content is highest for nacelle assembly (>90%), towers (70-90%), and blades and hubs (50-70%), but is much lower (<20%) for most components internal to the turbine. -Continued strong growth in wind capacity is anticipated in the near term: With federal tax incentives still available, various forecasts for the domestic market show expected wind power capacity additions of 8,000 to 11,000 MW/year from 2018 to 2020, with market contraction anticipated beginning in 2021 as those tax incentives are phased out.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Work Plan for the Site-wide SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis at INL

This work plan provides the overall framework, key activities, key tasks, and schedule for the execution of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis will follow processes and procedures appropriate for the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 study provided in U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance, NUREG-2213. The SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is being conducted as an INL site-wide effort. The work plan was developed and revised by participants who will perform the SSHAC Level 3 PSHA. The work plan also includes the quality assurance requirements commensurate with American Society of Mechanical Engineers Nuclear Quality Assurance NQA 1 2008/2009 and 2011 Addendum for design nuclear facilities under the U.S. Department of Energy and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The scope of the SSHAC Level 3 PSHA is designed to produce the mean-centered definition of the seismic hazard with the appropriate treatment of uncertainties supported by the associated technical justifications. The SSHAC Level 3 study will properly implement and completely document the activities of evaluation, integration, and documentation. The evaluation process will consider data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the PSHA at INL. The integration process will build seismic-source and ground-motion characterization models that represent the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations, taking into consideration the outcomes of the evaluation process. Key tasks and activities—such as a project kickoff meeting, three workshops, four formal working meetings, and a briefing meeting with the Participatory Peer Review Panel—will occur for the seven-member technical integration teams to construct seismic-source and ground-motion-characterization models. Both preliminary and final hazard-input documents will be developed to perform sensitivity analyses and the final PSHA, respectively. The entire study will be thoroughly documented in draft and final reports. The Participatory Peer Review Panel will review the SSHAC Level 3 study from start to finish, including the draft and final INL Site-wide PSHA reports, so they can provide a closure letter documenting the study’s adherence to SSHAC processes and technical adequacy of the final products.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Integration and Testing Challenges of Small Satellite Missions: Experiences from the Space Technology 5 Project

The Space Technology 5(ST5) payload was successfully carried into orbit on an OSC Pegasus XL launch vehicle, which was carried aloft and dropped from the OSC Lockheed L-1011 from Vandenberg Air Force Base March 22,2006, at 9:03 am Eastern time, 6:03 am Pacific time. In order to reach the completion of the development and successful launch of ST 5, the systems integration and test(I&T) team determined that a different approach was required to meet the project requirements rather than the standard I&T approach used for single, room-sized satellites. The ST5 payload, part of NASA's New Millennium Program headquartered at JPL, consisted of three micro satellites (approximately 30 kg each) and the Pegasus Support Structure (PSS), the system that connected the spacecrafts to the launch vehicle and deployed the spacecrafts into orbit from the Pegasus XL launch vehicle. ST5 was a technology demonstration payload, intended to test six (6) new technologies for potential use for future space flights along with demonstrating the ability of small satellites to perform quality science. The main technology was a science grade magnetometer designed to take measurements of the earth's magnetic field. The three spacecraft were designed, integrated, and tested at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center with integration and environmental testing occurring in the Bldg. 7-1 0-15-29. The three spacecraft were integrated and tested by the same I&T team. The I&T Manager determined that there was insufficient time in the schedule to perform the three I&T spacecraft activities in series used standard approaches. The solution was for spacecraft #1 to undergo integration and test first, followed by spacecraft #2 and #3 simultaneously. This simultaneous integration was successful for several reasons. Each spacecraft had a Lead Test Conductor who planned and coordinated their spacecraft through its integration and test activities. One team of engineers and technicians executed the integration of all three spacecraft, learning and gaining knowledge and efficiency as spacecraft #1 integration and testing progressed. They became acutely familiar with the hardware, operation and processes for I&T, thus each team member had the experience and knowledge to safely execute I&T for spacecraft #2 and #3 together. The integration team was very versatile and each member could perform many different activities or work any spacecraft, when needed. Daily meetings between the three Lead TCs and technician team allowed the team to plan and implement activities efficiently. The three (3) spacecraft and PSS were successfully integrated and tested, shipped to the launch site, and ready for launch per the I&T schedule that was planned three years previously.

Sauerwein, Timothy A.↗

Quantifying the Impact of BOReal Forest Fires on Tropospheric Oxidants Over the Atlantic Using Aircraft and Satellites (BORTAS) Experiment: Design, Execution, and Science Overview

We describe the design and execution of the BORTAS (Quantifying the impact of BOReal forest fires on Tropospheric oxidants using Aircraft and Satellites) experiment, which has the overarching objective of understanding the chemical aging of airmasses that contain the emission products from seasonal boreal wildfires and how these airmasses subsequently impact downwind atmospheric composition. The central focus of the experiment was a two-week deployment of the UK BAe-146-301 Atmospheric Research Aircraft (ARA) over eastern Canada. The planned July 2010 deployment of the ARA was postponed by 12 months because of activities related to the dispersal of material emitted by the Eyjafjallaj¨okull volcano. However, most other planned model and measurement activities, including ground-based measurements at the Dalhousie University Ground Station (DGS), enhanced ozonesonde launches, and measurements at the Pico Atmospheric Observatory in the Azores, went ahead and constituted phase A of the experiment. Phase B of BORTAS in July 2011 included the same measurements, but included the ARA, special satellite observations and a more comprehensive measurement suite at the DGS. Integrating these data helped us to describe pyrogenic plumes from wildfires on a wide spectrum of temporal and spatial scales. We interpret these data using a range of chemistry models, from a near-explicit gas-phase chemical mechanism to regional and global models of atmospheric transport and lumped chemistry. We also present an overview of some of the new science that has originated from this project.

BORTAS↗

The Pathway to a Safe and Effective Medication Formulary for Exploration Spaceflight

PURPOSE: Exploration space missions pose several challenges to providing a comprehensive medication formulary designed to accommodate the size and space limitations of the spacecraft; while addressing the individual medications needs and preferences of the Crew; the negative outcome of a degrading inventory over time, the inability to resupply before expiration dates; and the need to properly forecast the best possible medication candidates to treat conditions that will occur in the future. METHODS: The Pharmacotherapeutics Discipline has partnered with the Exploration Medical Capabilities (ExMC) Element to develop and propose a research pathway that is comprehensively focused on evidence-based models and theories, as well as on new diagnostic tools and treatments or preventive measures aimed at closure of the Med02 “Pharmacy” Gap; defined in the Human Research Program’s (HRP) risk-based research strategy. The Med02 Gap promotes the challenge to identify a strategy to ensure that medications used to treat medical conditions during exploration space missions are available, safe, and effective. It is abundantly clear that pharmaceutical intervention is an essential component of risk management planning for astronaut healthcare during exploration space. However, the quandary still remains of how to assemble a formulary that is comprehensive enough to prevent or treat anticipated medical events; and is also chemically stable, safe, and robust enough to have sufficient potency to last for the duration of an exploration space mission. In cases where that is not possible, addressing this Gap requires exploration of novel drug development techniques, dosage forms, and dosage delivery platforms that enhance chemical stability as well as therapeutic effectiveness. RESULTS: The proposed research pathway outlines the steps, processes, procedures, and a research portfolio aimed at identifying a capability that will provide a safe and effective pharmacy for any specific exploration Design Reference Mission (DRM). The proposed approach to building this research portfolio is to seek research projects that concentrate on four major focus areas; (1) Formulary selection, (2) Formulary potency and shelf life, (3) Formulary safety and toxicity, and (4) Novel technology and innovation such as portable real-time chemical analysis innovative drug therapies and dosage and delivery platforms. CONCLUSION: The research pathway has been completed and presented to the HRP. In spring 2017, it is scheduled to be reviewed by a panel of pharmaceutical and clinical experts that will evaluate the scientific merit and operational feasibility of the research pathway, as well as make suggestions for any warranted additions or improvements. Once finalized, the ExMC Element will proceed with the execution of this research pathway with the goal of gathering as much data, and learning as much as possible, to provide a safe and effective pharmaceutical formulary for use during exploration missions.

Daniels, V. R.↗

Evaluation of Building 23-620, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory J-3 Office, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-620, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) J-3 Office Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15283) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-620 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-620 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-620 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗