Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DOCUMENTATION”

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 919 records · Page 51
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

ONSITE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION CHALLENGES AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE

Prior to 2008, transfers of radioactive material within the Savannah River Site (SRS) boundary, referred to as onsite transfers, were authorized by Transportation Safety Basis (TSB) documents that only required approval by the SRS contractor. This practice was in accordance with the existing SRS Transportation Safety Document (TSD). In 2008 the Department of Energy Savannah River Field Office (DOE-SR) requested that the SRS TSD be revised to require DOE-SR approval of all Transportation Safety Basis (TSB) documents. As a result, the primary SRS contractor embarked on a multi-year campaign to consolidate old or generate new TSB documents and obtain DOE-SR approval for each. This paper focuses on the challenges incurred during the rewriting or writing of and obtaining DOE-SR approval of all Savannah River Site Onsite Transportation Safety Basis documents.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2013

Guidance Detailing Methods to Calculate Criticality Accident Alarm System Detector Response and Coverage

This paper is an extended summary of a guidance document that was produced by Oak Ridge National Laboratory on the subject of computational analyses of Criticality Accident Alarm Systems (CAAS). This full guidance document reviews ANSI/ANS-8.3-1997 and provides examples on how to calculate the fission rate that produces the minimum accident of concern, how to calculate the response of a CAAS detector, and how to evaluate the coverage of a CAAS detector. Discussing a strategy on how to perform CAAS placement analysis concludes the full guidance document. All of the examples in the full guidance document are performed with SCALE 6.1 and MCNP5, and the full input files for both are provided. This extended summary of the full guidance document only reviews ANSI/ANS-8.3-1997, calculates the fission rate that produces the minimum accident of concern for a simple example, and provides an example for one of the approaches suggested in the CAAS placement analysis strategy that uses a forward Monte Carlo transport calculation.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2013

The Evolution of LTS at DOE's Hanford Site

Hanford's Long-Term Stewardship (LTS) Program has evolved from a small, informal process, with minimal support, to a robust program that provides comprehensive transitions from cleanup contractors to long-term stewardship for post-cleanup requirements specified in the associated cleanup decision documents. The LTS Program has the responsibility for almost 100,000 acres of land, along with over 200 waste sites and will soon have six cocooned reactors. Close to 2,600 documents have been identified and tagged for storage in the LTS document library. The program has successfully completed six consecutive transitions over the last two years in support of the U.S. DOE Richland Operations Office's (DOE-RL) near-term cleanup objectives of significantly reducing the footprint of active cleanup operations for the River Corridor. The program has evolved from one that was initially responsible for defining and measuring Institutional Controls for the Hanford Site, to a comprehensive, post remediation surveillance and maintenance program that begins early in the transition process. In 2013, the first reactor area -- the cocooned 105-F Reactor and its surrounding 1,100 acres, called the F Area was transitioned. In another first, the program is expected to transition the five remaining cocooned reactors into the program through using a Transition and Turnover Package (TTP). As Hanford's LTS Program moves into the next few years, it will continue to build on a collaborative approach. The program has built strong relationships between contractors, regulators, tribes and stakeholders and with the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Legacy Management (LM). The LTS Program has been working with LM since its inception. The transition process utilized LM's Site Transition Framework as one of the initial requirement documents and the Hanford Program continues to collaborate with LM today. One example of this collaboration is the development of the LTS Program's records management system in which, LM has been instrumental. The development of a rigorous data collection and records management systems has been influenced and built off of LMs success, which also ensures compatibility between what Hanford's LTS Program develops and LM. In another example, we are exploring a pilot project to ship records from the Hanford Site directly to LM for long-term storage. This pilot would gain program efficiencies so that records would be handled only once. Rather than storage on-site, then shipment to an interim Federal Records Center in Seattle, records would be shipped directly to LM. The Hanford LTS Program is working to best align programmatic processes, find efficiencies, and to benchmark site transition requirements. Involving the Hanford LTS Program early in the transition process with an integrated contractor and DOE team is helping to ensure that there is time to work through details on the completed remediation of transitioning areas. It also will allow for record documentation and storage for the future, and is an opportunity for the program to mature through the experiences that will be gained by implementing LTS Program activities over time.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

Drilling, Completion, and Data Collection Plans An Assessment of Geological Carbon Sequestration Options in the Illinois Basin: Phase III

Executive Summary The Illinois Basin – Decatur Project (IBDP) is managed by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) and is led by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) at the University of Illinois. The project site is located on the Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) property in Decatur, Illinois, and is a fully integrated carbon capture and storage (CCS) project that uses CO₂ captured from the ethanol-producing fermentation process at the ADM corn-processing plant (Finley et. al., 2013). IBDP has a goal of injecting one million tonnes of CO₂ into the basal sands of the Mt. Simon Sandstone over a three-year period. This is a multifaceted project, and this report details the planning and results of the drilling, completions, well testing, log data acquisition, and the Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) aspects of the project. Three deep wells were planned for the IBDP: • The injection well: Injection Well #1 (CCS1); • The monitoring well (both in-zone and above seal): Verification Well #1 (VW1); and • The geophone monitoring well: Geophysical Monitoring Well #1 (GM1). The detailed plans for these wells are attached to the appendices of this document. The wells were drilled successfully with little deviation from the original plans. The biggest change from the plan to execution was the need to adjust for larger-than-expected loss of circulation in the Potosi section of the Knox Formation. The completions reports also attached to this document detail the well constructions as they were actually built. Injectivity testing was carried out, and the perforating plans were adjusted based on the results. Additional perforations and acidizing were performed as a result of the injectivity testing. The testing plans are detailed in this report along with the actual testing results. The injectivity testing results were used in the modeling and simulation efforts. Detailed HSE plans were developed and implemented during the planning and execution phases of the project. The implementation included an HSE Bridging Document, which served to unify the HSE policies of the project partners and key subcontractors. The HSE plan and actual HSE results are presented in this document. There were no recordable HSE incidents during the project. A detailed logging program was developed based on project needs. The log data were acquired in accordance with the plan, and both the plan and log results are presented in this report. Log data were heavily utilized by the research staff, modelers, reservoir engineers, and for technical and permitting efforts. 5 Several key lessons were learned during the project: • Safety in operations and execution is paramount and is only achieved through proper planning and behavior control. The certainty of this was reinforced through implementation of this lesson and the resultant flawless HSE performance during the project. • Losses of drilling fluid circulation were larger than anticipated within the Potosi Formation. Circulation was only recovered through cementing the loss zones. • When possible, minimizing complexity in permit requirements and well designs is preferable. • The size of the wells were outside of the standard experience and expertise typical within the basin, and therefore required substantial planning and ramp-up of contractors and partners to meet project objectives. • With multiple stakeholders and research partners, establishing objectives and requirements early and adhering to change request procedures throughout the project are critical to manage competing data and sampling objectives that may be detrimental to overall progress. The well construction and completion operations were successfully executed, with all wells built in a manner that achieved excellent wellbore integrity. Log planning involved a number of stakeholders and technical specialists. Data collection from logging, coring, and testing was excellent. Time and effort spent with the associated contractors and suppliers to develop a well plan beyond normal scope proved highly successful, resulting in a well-construction and completion project that surpassed expectations. The world-class HSE results also demonstrate the commitment of all stakeholders in the project. The details follow in the body of this document

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2019

Information searching system

A method and computer system for searching a collection of documents. The method comprises first identifying text in the document and then identifying an image in the document. Then the features of the image are extracted from the document and image terms are identified from the features. Finally, the collection of documents is searched using the image terms in conjunction with text terms.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

System and method of content based recommendation using hypernym expansion

A system and method for document recommendation combines linguistic and term frequency approaches in order to improve overall performance and recommendation. Hypernyms are added to the source document set so that related documents can be recommended from the source document set. There are a variety of different parameters to configure that change operation of the document recommendation system.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

NRIC Asset Suite Engineering and Operations Data Integration Plan

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC), established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in August 2019, accelerates the demonstration and deployment of advanced nuclear energy through its mission to inspire stakeholders and the public, empower innovators, and deliver successful outcomes through efficient coordination of partners and resources. NRIC is a national program led by Idaho National Laboratory (INL), enabling collaborators to harness the world-class capabilities of the U.S. National Laboratory System. Committed to demonstrating advanced reactors by the end of 2025, NRIC is designed to bridge the gap between research, development, and the marketplace to help convert some of the Nation’s most promising advanced nuclear reactors into commercial applications by 2030. To meet these needs, NRIC is developing two reactor demonstration test beds at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the Laboratory for Operation and Testing in the United States (LOTUS) and the Demonstration and Operation of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) test bed. Each test bed involves the modification of existing facilities at INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC). Retrofitting these facilities to accommodate novel reactors, as well as subsequent but similar NRIC projects, is a non-trivial engineering task and is expected to generate a significant amount of new and revised documentation. Leveraging digital engineering practices, this documentation will be managed in a purpose-built data management tool to facilitate origination, review, and approval while coordinating with the design contractor. The subsequent upload and review of documentation to INL’s existing document control system comprises a long and unnecessarily manual task. An opportunity exists to automate this upload process and save job-hours while continuing to adhere to INL/MFC document management procedures.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2012

F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment Updates through the Special Analysis Process at Savannah River Site - 12169

The F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by Savannah River Remediation, LLC (SRR), Liquid Waste Operations contractor at DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS). The FTF is in the north-central portion of the SRS and occupies approximately 22 acres within F-Area. The FTF is an active radioactive waste storage facility consisting of 22 carbon steel waste tanks and ancillary equipment such as transfer lines, evaporators and pump tanks. An FTF Performance Assessment (PA) was prepared to support the eventual closure of the FTF underground radioactive waste tanks and ancillary equipment. The PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified below for final closure of FTF. The FTank Farm is subject to a state industrial waste water permit and Federal Facility Agreement. Closure documentation will include an F-Tank Farm Closure Plan and tank-specific closure modules utilizing information from the performance assessment. For this reason, the State of South Carolina and the Environmental Protection Agency must be involved in the performance assessment review process. The residual material remaining after tank cleaning is also subject to reclassification prior to closure via a waste determination pursuant to Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005. The projected waste tank inventories in the FTF PA provide reasonably bounding FTF inventory projections while taking into account uncertainties in the effectiveness of future tank cleaning technologies. As waste is removed from the FTF waste tanks, the residual contaminants will be sampled and the remaining residual inventory is characterized. In this manner, tank specific data for the tank inventories at closure will be available to supplement the waste tank inventory projections currently used in the FTF PA. For FTF, the new tank specific data will be evaluated through the Special Analysis process. The FTF Special Analyses process will be utilized to evaluate information regarding the final residual waste that will be grouted in place in the FTF Tanks and assess the potential impact the new inventory information has on the FTF PA assumptions and results. The Special Analysis can then be used to inform decisions regarding FTF tank closure documents. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Special Analysis process and share insights gained while implementing this process. An example of an area of interest in the revision process is balancing continuous improvement versus configuration control of agreed upon methodologies. Other subjects to be covered include: 1) defining the scope of the revisions included in the Special Analysis, 2) determining which PA results should be addressed in the Special Analysis, and 3) deciding whether the Special Analysis should utilize more qualitative or quantitative assessments. For the SRS FTF, an FTF PA has been prepared to provide the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements for final closure of FTF. The FTF Special Analyses process will be utilized to evaluate the impact new information has on the FTF PA assumptions and results. The Special Analysis can then be used to inform decisions regarding FTF tank closure documents. In preparing SAs, it is crucial that the scope of the SA be well defined within the SA, since the specific scope will vary from SA to SA. Since the SAs are essentially addendums to the PA, the SA scope should utilize the PA as the baseline from which the SA scope is defined. The SA needs to focus on evaluating the change associated with the scope, and not let other changes interfere with the ability to perform that evaluation by masking the impact of the change. In preparing the SA, it is also important to let the scope determine whether the Special Analysis should utilize more qualitative or quantitative assessments and also which results from the PA should be addressed in the Special Analysis. These decisions can vary from SA and should not be predetermined. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Automation of environmental compliance data acquisition and management - 15267

Regulatory sampling for environmental compliance at the Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, South Carolina employs several different types of sampling techniques at various sampling frequencies. These sampling events result in the collection of large quantities of data and generate substantial data-related documents. The use of paper documents resulted in the need for manual input of data collected in the field and distribution of documents from one group to the next. To efficiently and effectively manage the extensive amounts of data and documents, elements of the sampling process were automated using hand-held field tablets and an electronic application. The tablets allow for easier distribution of sampling documents, and the application allows for digital transfer of sampling information and collected field data. The transition to automated data acquisition and management has resulted in a more efficient and reliable manner for conducting business at SRS. This system benefits numerous organizations at SRS by utilizing a centralized database for efficient management of all environmental data collected. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

How To Determine and Verify Operations and Maintenance Savings in Energy Savings Performance Contracts

Operations and maintenance (O&M) savings frequently occur in energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs). During FY 2022, 37% of reported annual cost savings for projects awarded under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ESPC indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts and in the performance period were due to O&M or other energy- and/or water-related cost savings, with the balance (63%) from utility cost savings (i.e., energy or water cost savings). Sometimes the energy- and water-related cost savings are acknowledged and included in payments within ESPCs; other times, for various reasons, they are not. As presented in this guide, FEMP recommends including energy- and water-related cost savings that are O&M (including related repair and replacement) savings in the financial aspects of an ESPC, to the extent such savings can be documented. Inclusion of these savings will help augment project scopes and/or lower interest costs (by shortening financing terms). However, there is a burden of proof as to what constitutes acceptability in O&M savings that needs to be carefully considered and documented in individual projects. Beyond promoting a key tenet used in U.S. federal performance contracting—that savings must be from actual budgets and therefore based on the level of O&M that is actually occurring, not what should have been performed—FEMP also recommends good practice in establishing and documenting O&M baselines, formulating the rationale for baseline adjustments during the performance period, and conducting ongoing verification activities. This document concludes with five examples of how O&M savings may be handled, in situations ranging from the partial displacement of O&M contracts to consolidation and “virtualization” of servers in data centers. A key theme that permeates this guide is the importance of thoroughly documenting all conditions and assumptions used in the development of and accounting for O&M costs and savings throughout the ESPC life cycle, from baseline-setting to measurement and verification (M&V) of the savings during each year of the performance period. Doing so not only prevents internal claims of non-performance (especially in the case of staff turnover during the contract term), but also simplifies ordering agency and energy service company (ESCO) response in the event of scrutiny from oversight organizations, such as government audits. While this guide focuses on federal ESPCs, it may also be applicable when O&M savings are included in utility energy service contracts (UESCs) and non-federal ESPCs.

Voss, Phil↗
DOE OSTI2025

Digitizing and Enhancing Accessibility of the Fusion Safety Archives

This project focuses on the digitization and public accessibility to the Fusion Safety Archives at the Idaho National Laboratory. The first phase involves a thorough review of each document in the physical archives to determine its online availability. For documents that are available online, PDF copies and unique identifiers are collected for database integration. Documents not available online are delivered to Red Inc. for digitization. Additionally, defunct storage devices such as diskettes are sent to INL’s archival department for data retrieval where possible. The second phase of the project involves the creation of a comprehensive database to house the digital copies of the archives. The database will facilitate easy access and management of the digitized documents. Following the database creation, we plan to train a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) based AI on publicly available documents. The trained AI will be integrated into a front-facing application, allowing the public to easily access information from the Fusion Safety Archives. This project aims to preserve valuable historical data, improve accessibility, and promote transparency in fusion safety research.

70 - PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

ECAR-6580 Rev 0 ASME Section III, Division 5 Analysis of the MARVEL PCS and GVS Top Corner

The purpose of this Engineering Calculations and Analysis Report (ECAR) is to document the structural evaluation for part of the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation (MARVEL) Primary Coolant System (PCS) and Guard Vessel System (GVS). For the PCS this relates specifically to the Distribution Plenum (DP), The Intermediate Heat Exchanger (IHX), and the Upper Downcomer (UD). For the GVS, this will include only the top corner that is machined into the DP Top Plate. These components will be evaluated using the 2021 version of ASME Section III, Division 5 [1] which is a design code that governs the construction of vessels, storage tanks, piping, pumps, valves, supports, core support structures and nonmetallic core components for use in high temperature reactor systems and their supporting systems. Materials at high temperature are subject to creep and fatigue mechanisms that require additional analyses that aren’t covered in ASME Section III, Division 1 rules. Division 5 contains two approaches: elastic or inelastic, however, additional Code Cases specific to Division 5, allow for an Elastic-Perfectly Plastic (EPP) approach. The components analyzed in this ECAR will use a combination of the elastic and EPP approach. Only Design and Service Levels A and B are evaluated in this ECAR. Service Level D evaluations for the entire PCS are documented in ECAR-6564, “MARVEL Project Primary Coolant System Pressure Vessel Stress Documentation” [2] and for the entire GVS are documented in ECAR-6574, “MARVEL Guard Vessel System FEA and ASME Analysis” [3]. The Design and Service Level A and B analyses for the PCS Downcomer piping and Core Barrel are documented in ANL-24/36, "Engineering Calculations and Analysis of the Core Barrel and Downcomer Piping in the MARVEL PCS” [4], and the GVS (except for the top corner) is in ECAR-6574, “MARVEL Guard Vessel System FEA and ASME Analysis.” See Section 2.0 for more detail on the analysis boundaries.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-462: Lessons Learned From a Machine Incident Reporting System

Purpose: Linear accelerators must operate with minimal downtime. Machine incident logs are a crucial tool to meet this requirement. They providing a history of service and demonstrate whether a fix is working. This study investigates the information content of a large department linear accelerator incident log. Methods: Our department uses an electronic reporting system to provide immediate information to both key department staff and the field service department. This study examines reports for five linac logs during 2015. The report attributes for analysis include frequency, level of documentation, who solved the problem, and type of fix used. Results: Of the reports, 36% were documented as resolved. In another 25% the resolution allowed treatment to proceed although the reported problem recurred within days. In 5% only intermediate troubleshooting was documented. The remainder lacked documentation. In 60% of the reports, radiation therapists resolved the problem, often by clearing the appropriate faults or reinitializing a software or hardware service. 22% were resolved by physics and 10% by field service engineers. The remaining 8% were resolved by IT, Facilities, or resolved spontaneously. Typical fixes, in order of scope, included clearing the fault and moving on, closing and re-opening the patient session or software, cycling power to a sub-unit, recalibrating a device (e.g., optical surface imaging), and calling in Field Service (usually resolving the problem through maintenance or component replacement). Conclusion: The reports with undocumented resolution represent a missed opportunity for learning. Frequency of who resolves a problem scales with the proximity of the person’s role (therapist, physicist, or service engineer), which is inversely related to the permanence of the resolution. Review of lessons learned from machine incident logs can form the basis for guidance to radiation therapists and medical physicists to minimize equipment downtime and ensure safe operation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Poster - 28: Shielding of X-ray Rooms in Ontario in the Absence of Best Practice

This poster will be strictly based on the Healing Arts Radiation Protection (HARP) Act, Regulation 543 under this Act (X-ray Safety Code), and personal communication the presenting author has had. In Ontario, the process of approval of an X-ray machine installation by the Director of the X-ray Inspection Service (XRIS) follows a certain protocol. Initially, the applicant submits a series of forms, including recommended shielding amounts, in order to satisfy the law. This documentation is then transferred to a third-party vendor (i.e. a professional engineer – P.Eng.) outsourced by the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC). The P.Eng. then evaluates the submitted documentation for appropriate fulfillment of the HARP Act and Reg. 543 requirements. If the P.Eng.’s evaluation of the documentation is to their satisfaction, the XRIS is then notified. Finally, the Director will then issue a letter of approval to install the equipment at the facility. The methodology required to be used by the P.Eng. in order to determine the required amounts of protective barriers, and recommended to be used by the applicant, is contained within Safety Code 20A. However, Safety Code 35 has replaced the obsolete Safety Code 20A document and employs best practices in shielding design. This talk will focus further on specific intentions and limitations of Safety Code 20A. Furthermore, this talk will discuss the definition of the “practice of professional engineering” in Ontario. COMP members who are involved in shielding design are strongly encouraged to attend.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2011

Idaho National Laboratory’s Greenhouse Gas FY08 Baseline

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic attempt to account for the production and release of certain gasses generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gasses of interest are those which have become identified by climate science as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during fiscal year (FY) 2008 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored entity, located in southeastern Idaho. Concern about the environmental impact of GHGs has grown in recent years. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of a baseline estimate of total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 13514 requires that federal agencies and institutions document reductions in GHG emissions in the future, and such documentation will require knowledge of a baseline against which reductions can be measured. INL's FY08 GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three Scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occur outside INL's organizational boundaries but are a consequence of INL's activities). This inventory found that INL generated a total of 113,049 MT of CO2-equivalent emissions during FY08. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL's baseline GHG inventory: (1) Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL's GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO2e emissions; (2) Other sources with high emissions were stationary combustion (facility fuels), waste disposal (including fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill and contracted disposal), mobile combustion (fleet fuels), employee commuting, and business air travel; and (3) Sources with low emissions were wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL's GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by the Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only that large proportion of Laboratory activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2011

Preliminary Design Reviews Project: SAPHIRE 8

The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) is intended to be performed at the conceptual phase of a design request. The design request is initiated with a Design Specification document which includes a problem statement, design details, a design checklist and supporting documentation and/or projected sample output. In addition to this, the design specification has a chapter devoted to the completion of the Preliminary Design Review. This document describes the process of documentation of the PDR in the Design Specification.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2012

Decommissioning of the Remediation Systems at Waverly, Nebraska, in 2011-2012

The Commodity Credit Corporation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (CCC/USDA) operated a grain storage facility in Waverly, Nebraska, from 1952 to 1974. During this time, the grain fumigant '80/20' (carbon tetrachloride/carbon disulfide) was used to preserve stored grain. In 1982, sampling by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found carbon tetrachloride contamination in the town's groundwater. After an investigation of the contaminant distribution, the site was placed on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1986, and the CCC/USDA accepted responsibility for the contamination. An Interagency Compliance Agreement between the EPA and the CCC/USDA was finalized in May 1988 (EPA 1990). The EPA (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, contractor) started immediate cleanup efforts in 1987 with the installation of an air stripper, a soil vapor extraction system, a groundwater extraction well, and groundwater and soil gas monitoring wells (Woodward-Clyde 1986, 1988a,b). After the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD; EPA 1990), the CCC/USDA (Argonne National Laboratory, contractor) took over operation of the treatment systems. The CCC/USDA conducted a site investigation (Argonne 1991, 1992a,b), during which a carbon tetrachloride plume in groundwater was discovered northeast of the former facility. This plume was not being captured by the existing groundwater extraction system. The remediation system was modified in 1994 (Argonne 1993) with the installation of a second groundwater extraction well to contain the contamination further. Subsequently, a detailed evaluation of the system resulted in a recommendation to pump only the second well to conserve water in the aquifer (Argonne 1995). Sampling and analysis after implementation of this recommendation showed continued decreases in the extent and concentrations of the contamination with only one well pumping (Argonne 1999). The CCC/USDA issued quarterly monitoring reports from 1988 to 2009. Complete documentation of the CCC/USDA characterization and remediation efforts, including the quarterly monitoring reports, is on the compact disc inside the back cover of this report. The EPA reported on the progress of the remediation systems in a series of five-year reviews (EPA 1993, 1999, 2004, 2009). These reports and other EPA documentation are also on the compact disc inside the back cover of this report, along with the Woodward-Clyde (1986, 1988a,b) documentation cited. Starting in 2006, the analytical results for groundwater (the only medium still being monitored) showed no carbon tetrachloride concentrations above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5.0 g/L. Because the cleanup goals specified in the ROD (EPA 1990) had been met, the EPA removed the site from the NPL in November 2006 (Appendix A). In 2008 the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the remediation system was deactivated, and a year later the EPA released its fourth and final five-year report (EPA 2009), indicating that no further action was required for the site and that the site was ready for unlimited use. In 2011-2012, the CCC/USDA decommissioned the remediation systems at Waverly. This report documents the decommission process and closure of the site.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Summary of Remediated Nitrate Salt Surrogate Formulation and Testing

High Explosives Science and Technology (M-7) completed all required formulation and testing of Remediated Nitrate Salt (RNS) surrogates on April 27, 2016 as specified in PLAN-TA9-2443 Rev B, "Remediated Nitrate Salt (RNS) Surrogate Formulation and Testing Standard Procedure", released February 16, 2016. This report summarizes the results of the work and also includes additional documentation required in that test plan. All formulation and testing was carried out according to PLAN-TA9-2443 Rev B. The work was carried out in three rounds, with the full matrix of samples formulated and tested in each round. Results from the first round of formulation and testing were documented in memorandum M7-J6-6042, " Results from First Round of Remediated Nitrate Salt Surrogate Formulation and Testing." Results from the second round of formulation and testing were documented in M7-16-6053 , "Results from the Second Round of Remediated Nitrate Salt Surrogate Formulation and Testing." Initial results from the third round were documented in M7-16-6057, "Initial Results from the Third Round of Remediated Nitrate Salt Formulation and Testing."

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗