Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “FACILITY”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Life-Cycle Assessments of Selected NASA Ground-Based Test Facilities

In the past two years, two separate facility-specific life cycle assessments (LCAs) have been performed as summer student projects. The first project focused on 13 facilities managed by NASA s Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), an organization responsible for large, high-energy ground test facilities that accomplish the nation s most advanced aerospace research. A facility inventory was created for each facility, and the operational-phase carbon footprint and environmental impact were calculated. The largest impacts stemmed from electricity and natural gas used directly at the facility and to generate support processes such as compressed air and steam. However, in specialized facilities that use unique inputs like R-134a, R-14, jet fuels, or nitrogen gas, these sometimes had a considerable effect on the facility s overall environmental impact. The second LCA project was conducted on the NASA Ames Arc Jet Complex and also involved creating a facility inventory and calculating the carbon footprint and environmental impact. In addition, operational alternatives were analyzed for their effectiveness at reducing impact. Overall, the Arc Jet Complex impact is dominated by the natural-gas fired boiler producing steam on-site, but alternatives were provided that could reduce the impact of the boiler operation, some of which are already being implemented. The data and results provided by these LCA projects are beneficial to both the individual facilities and NASA as a whole; the results have already been used in a proposal to reduce carbon footprint at Ames Research Center. To help future life cycle projects, several lessons learned have been recommended as simple and effective infrastructure improvements to NASA, including better utility metering and data recording and standardization of modeling choices and methods. These studies also increased sensitivity to and appreciation for quantifying the impact of NASA s activities.

Sydnor, George Honeycutt↗
DOE OSTI2026

Jupiter Laser Facility Annual Report, FY 2025

Dear JLF community, I cannot believe I am now entering my third year as JLF director — time definitely flies when you are having fun! FY25 was another pivotal year for the Jupiter Laser Facility, marked by both scientific achievement and growing visibility for our community. Building on the successful reopening and refurbishment of the facility, we continued to demonstrate how JLF drives innovation in high energy density and fusion energy science, laser technology, and workforce development. Across Janus, Titan, and COMET, users executed a diverse portfolio of experiments, from dynamic compression and opacity measurements to laser plasma interactions, laboratory astrophysics, and advanced diagnostics. These efforts are highlighted in this report, including the development of new probes that capture the time evolution of plasmas on a single shot, and diagnostics and platforms that are already impacting experiments at NIF and other large facilities. JLF continues to serve as both a testbed for new ideas and a bridge to larger scale campaigns. FY25 also showcased the broader role of JLF within the Laboratory and the national HED science ecosystem. The NIF JLF User Groups Meeting in February brought nearly 180 participants to Livermore and highlighted the scientific progress made during JLF’s first full year of renewed operations. JLF research and users were recognized with Director’s Institutional Awards and Early and Mid Career awards, underscoring the quality and impact of the work performed here. Our team also contributed prominently to national conversations about laser safety, plasma physics, and inertial fusion energy through invited talks, conferences, and professional society leadership. JLF’s integration with LaserNetUS deepened this year as well. We launched a new technical exchange program across LaserNetUS facilities and kicked it off with a JLF team visit to the BELLA Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These exchanges are strengthening operations, sharing best practices, and improving the user experience across the network. Filming for the LaserNetUS “Behind the Scenes” series and participation in the annual LaserNetUS meeting further increased the visibility of our facility and our users. At the same time, JLF continues to play a central role in ambitious new programs, such as the Big Aperture Thulium laser effort funded through one of the DOE Office of Science Microelectronics Science Research Centers, which will use JLF infrastructure to explore next generation high rep rate lasers for EUV and x-ray source development. A core part of our mission remains training the next generation of scientists. In FY25, we welcomed another cohort of summer students, who joined experimental teams on Titan and presented their research at LLNL’s student poster symposium and national inertial fusion energy meetings. JLF users and early career scientists showcased their work at conferences across the country, highlighting experiments performed at the facility. These hands on experiences, and the mentoring provided by our staff and user teams, are central to JLF’s identity as a true user facility. Finally, FY25 reinforced JLF’s role as a focal point for partnerships and outreach. We hosted visits from international collaborators, science leaders, and we shared the story of the facility through venues such as the Big Ideas Lab podcast. These interactions help connect our work to a broader scientific and policy audience and open new pathways for collaboration. As we look ahead, the combination of refurbished hardware, new capabilities like STILETTO and enhanced short pulse performance on Titan, strong partnerships across LLNL and LaserNetUS, and a growing user community positions JLF for an even more ambitious program in the coming years. I am deeply grateful to our technical and operations staff for their dedication, to our LLNL partners for their continued support, and to our users for bringing bold, creative ideas to the facility. I look forward to more experiments, capabilities, partnerships, and groundbreaking science in the years to come! With brightest regards, Félicie Albert, JLF Director.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS1991

Nuclear thermal propulsion test facility requirements and development strategy

The Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) subpanel of the Space Nuclear Propulsion Test Facilities Panel evaluated facility requirements and strategies for nuclear thermal propulsion systems development. High pressure, solid core concepts were considered as the baseline for the evaluation, with low pressure concepts an alternative. The work of the NTP subpanel revealed that a wealth of facilities already exists to support NTP development, and that only a few new facilities must be constructed. Some modifications to existing facilities will be required. Present funding emphasis should be on long-lead-time items for the major new ground test facility complex and on facilities supporting nuclear fuel development, hot hydrogen flow test facilities, and low power critical facilities.

Allen, George C.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Transonic turbine blade cascade testing facility

NASA LeRC has designed and constructed a new state-of-the-art test facility. This facility, the Transonic Turbine Blade Cascade, is used to evaluate the aerodynamics and heat transfer characteristics of blade geometries for future turbine applications. The facility's capabilities make it unique: no other facility of its kind can combine the high degree of airflow turning, infinitely adjustable incidence angle, and high transonic flow rates. The facility air supply and exhaust pressures are controllable to 16.5 psia and 2 psia, respectively. The inlet air temperatures are at ambient conditions. The facility is equipped with a programmable logic controller with a capacity of 128 input/output channels. The data acquisition system is capable of scanning up to 1750 channels per sec. This paper discusses in detail the capabilities of the facility, overall facility design, instrumentation used in the facility, and the data acquisition system. Actual research data is not discussed.

Verhoff, Vincent G.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Transonic turbine blade cascade testing facility

NASA LeRC has designed and constructed a new state-of-the-art test facility. This facility, the Transonic Turbine Blade Cascade, is used to evaluate the aerodynamics and heat transfer characteristics of blade geometries for future turbine applications. The facility's capabilities make it unique: no other facility of its kind can combine the high degree of airflow turning, infinitely adjustable incidence angle, and high transonic flow rates. The facility air supply and exhaust pressures are controllable to 16.5 psia and 2 psia, respectively. The inlet air temperatures are at ambient conditions. The facility is equipped with a programmable logic controller with a capacity of 128 input/output channels. The data acquisition system is capable of scanning up to 1750 channels per sec. This paper discusses in detail the capabilities of the facility, overall facility design, instrumentation used in the facility, and the data acquisition system. Actual research data is not discussed.

Verhoff, Vincent G.↗
NASA NTRS1994

Space facilities: Meeting future needs for research, development, and operations

The National Facilities Study (NFS) represents an interagency effort to develop a comprehensive and integrated long-term plan for world-class aeronautical and space facilities that meet current and projected needs for commercial and government aerospace research and development and space operations. At the request of NASA and the DOD, the National Research Council's Committee on Space Facilities has reviewed the space related findings of the NFS. The inventory of more than 2800 facilities will be an important resource, especially if it continues to be updated and maintained as the NFS report recommends. The data in the inventory provide the basis for a much better understanding of the resources available in the national facilities infrastructure, as well as extensive information on which to base rational decisions about current and future facilities needs. The working groups have used the inventory data and other information to make a set of recommendations that include estimates of cast savings and steps for implementation. While it is natural that the NFS focused on cost reduction and consolidations, such a study is most useful to future planning if it gives equal weight to guiding the direction of future facilities needed to satisfy legitimate national aspirations. Even in the context of cost reduction through facilities closures and consolidations, the study is timid about recognizing and proposing program changes and realignments of roles and missions to capture what could be significant savings and increased effectiveness. The recommendations of the Committee on Space Facilities are driven by the clear need to be more realistic and precise both in recognizing current incentives and disincentives in the aerospace industry and in forecasting future conditions for U.S. space activities.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2003

X-Ray Testing Constellation-X Optics at MSFC's 100-m Facility

In addition to the 530-m-long X-Ray Calibration Facility (XRCF), NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) operates a 104-m-long (source-to-detector) X-ray-test facility. Originally developed and still occasionally used for stray-light testing of visible-fight optical systems, the so-called "Stray-Light Facility" now serves primarily as a convenient and inexpensive facility for performance evaluation and calibration of X-ray optics and detectors. The facility can accommodate X-ray optics up to about 1-m diameter and 12-m focal length. Currently available electron-impact sources at the facility span the approximate energy range 0.2 to 100 keV, thus supporting testing of soft- and hard-X-ray optics and detectors. Available MSFC detectors are a front-illuminated CCD (charge-coupled device) and a scanning CZT (cadmium--zinc--telluride) detector, with low-energy cut-offs of about 0.8 and 3 keV, respectively. In order to test developmental optics for the Constellation-X Project, led by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), MSFC undertook several enhancements to the facility. Foremost among these was development and fabrication of a five-degree-of-freedom (5-DoF) optics mount and control system, which translates and tilts the user-provided mirror assembly suspended from its interface plate. Initial Constellation-X tests characterize the performance of the Optical Alignment Pathfinder Two (OAP2) for the large Spectroscopy X-ray Telescope (SXT) and of demonstration mirror assemblies for the Hard X-ray Telescope (HXT). With the Centroid Detector Assembly (CDA), used for precision alignment of the Chandra (nee AXAF) mirrors, the Constellation-X SXT Team optically aligned the individual mirrors of the OAPZ at GSFC. The team then developed set-up and alignment procedures, including transfer of the alignment from the optical alignment facility at GSFC to the X-ray test facility at MSFC, using a reference flat and fiducials. The OAPZ incorporates additional ancillary features --- fixed aperture mask and movable sub-aperture mask --- to facilitate X-ray characterization of the optics. Although the OAPZ was designed to- have low sensitivity to temperature offsets and gradients, analyses showed the necessity of active temperature control for the X-ray performance testing. Thus, the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) implemented a thermal control and monitoring system, designed to hold the OAP2 close to its assembly.

O'Dell, Stephen↗
NASA NTRS2004

NASA Glenn's Single-Stage Axial Compressor Facility Upgraded

NASA Glenn Research Center's Single-Stage Axial Compressor Facility was upgraded in fiscal year 2003 to expand and improve its research capabilities for testing high-speed fans and compressors. The old 3000-hp drive motor and gearbox were removed and replaced with a refurbished 7000-hp drive motor and gearbox, with a maximum output speed of 21,240 rpm. The higher horsepower rating permits testing of fans and compressors with higher pressure ratio or higher flow. A new inline torquemeter was installed to provide an alternate measurement of fan and compressor efficiency, along with the standard pressure and temperature measurements. A refurbished compressor bearing housing was also installed with bidirectional rotation capability, so that a variety of existing hardware could be tested. Four new lubrication modules with backup capability were installed for the motor, gearbox, torquemeter, and compressor bearing housing, so that in case the primary pump fails, the backup will prevent damage to the rotating hardware. The combustion air supply line for the facility inlet air system was activated to provide dry air for repeatable inlet conditions. New flow conditioning hardware was installed in the facility inlet plenum tank, which greatly reduced the inlet turbulence. The new inlet can also be easily modified to accommodate 20- or 22-in.-diameter fans and compressors, so a variety of existing hardware from other facilities (such as Glenn's 9- by 15-Foot Low-Speed Wind Tunnel) can be tested in the Single-Stage Axial Compressor Facility. An exhaust line was also installed to provide bleed capability to remove the inlet boundary layer. To improve the operation and control of the facility, a new programmable logic controller (PLC) was installed to upgrade from hardwired relay logic to software logic. The PLC also enabled the usage of human-machine interface software to allow for easier operation of the facility and easier reconfiguration of the facility controls when necessary. Finally, a new health-monitoring system was installed to measure shaft speed, shaft movement, and machine vibration on all of the rotating equipment. The system also provides automatic alarms and shutdown of the equipment when required. An integrated systems test for checkout of the facility was completed on June 17, 2003. Research testing resumed on June 30 with data obtained in support of the Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology Project's Compressor Casing Treatment Project.

Brokopp, Richard A.↗
NASA NTRS2008

Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Unsteady Analyses and Risk Assessment - Part 2

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Design Support of the feasibility of operating conditions and procedures is critical in such cases due to the possibility of startup/shutdown transients, moving shock structures, unsteady shock-boundary layer interactions and engine and diffuser unstart modes that can result in catastrophic failure. Analyses of such systems is difficult due to resolution requirements needed to accurately capture moving shock structures, shock-boundary layer interactions, two-phase flow regimes and engine unstart modes. In a companion paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD, steady analyses advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in the sub-scale A-3 facility. In this paper we will address transient issues with the operation of the facility especially at startup and shutdown, and assess risks related to afterburning due to the interaction of a fuel rich plume with oxygen that is a by-product of the steam ejectors. The primary areas that will be addressed in this paper are: (1) analyses of unstart modes due to flow transients especially during startup/ignition, (2) engine safety during the shutdown process (3) interaction of steam ejectors with the primary plume i.e. flow transients as well as probability of afterburning. In this abstract we discuss unsteady analyses of the engine shutdown process. However, the final paper will include analyses of a staged startup, drawdown of the engine test cell pressure, and risk assessment of potential afterburning in the facility. Unsteady simulations have been carried out to study the engine shutdown process in the facility and understand the physics behind the interactions between the steam ejectors, the test cell and the supersonic diffuser. As a first approximation, to understand the dominant unsteady mechanisms in the engine test cell and the supersonic diffuser, the turning duct in the facility was removed. As the engine loses power a rarefaction wave travels downstream that disrupts the shock cell structure in the supersonic diffuser. Flow from the test cell is seen to expand into the supersonic diffuser section and re-pressurizes the area around the nozzle along with a upstream traveling compression wave that emanates from near the first stage ejectors. Flow from the first stage ejector expands to the center of the duct and a new shock train is formed between the first and second stage ejectors. Both stage ejectors keep the facility pressurized and prevent any large amplitude pressure fluctuations from affecting the engine nozzle. The resultant pressure loads the nozzle experiences in the shutdown process are small.

Ahuja, Vineet↗
NASA NTRS2013

An Overview of the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) Facility and the Research Performed in the MSG on the International Space Station (ISS)

The Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) is a rack facility aboard the International Space Station (ISS) designed for investigation handling. The MSG was built by the European Space Agency (ESA) which also provides sustaining engineering support for the facility. The MSG has been operating on the ISS since July 2002 and is currently located in the US Laboratory Module. The unique design of the facility allows it to accommodate science and technology investigations in a "workbench" type environment. The facility has an enclosed working volume that is held at a negative pressure with respect to the crew living area. This allows the facility to provide two levels of containment for small parts, particulates, fluids, and gases. This containment approach protects the crew from possible hazardous operations that take place inside the MSG work volume. Research investigations operating inside the MSG are provided a large 255 liter enclosed work space, 1000 watts of dc power via a versatile supply interface (120, 28, +/- 12, and 5 Vdc), 1000 watts of cooling capability, video and data recording and real time downlink, ground commanding capabilities, access to ISS Vacuum Exhaust and Vacuum Resource Systems, and gaseous nitrogen supply. These capabilities make the MSG one of the most utilized facilities on ISS. The MSG has been used for over 14500 hours of scientific payload operations. MSG investigations involve research in cryogenic fluid management, fluid physics, spacecraft fire safety, materials science, combustion, plant growth, and life support technology. The MSG facility is operated by the Payloads Operations Integration Center at Marshall Space flight Center. Payloads may also operate remotely from different telescience centers located in the United States and Europe. The investigative Payload Integration Manager (iPIM) is the focal to assist organizations that have payloads operating in the MSG facility. NASA provides an MSG engineering unit for payload developers to verify that their hardware is operating properly before actual operation on the ISS. This paper will provide an overview of the MSG facility, a synopsis of the research that has already been accomplished in the MSG, and an overview of video and biological upgrades.

Jordan, Lee P.↗
NASA NTRS2016

X-ray Cryogenic Facility (XRCF) Handbook

The X-ray & Cryogenic Facility (XRCF) Handbook is a guide for planning operations at the facility. A summary of the capabilities, policies, and procedures is provided to enhance project coordination between the facility user and XRCF personnel. This handbook includes basic information that will enable the XRCF to effectively plan and support test activities. In addition, this handbook describes the facilities and systems available at the XRCF for supporting test operations. 1.2 General Facility Description The XRCF was built in 1989 to meet the stringent requirements associated with calibration of X-ray optics, instruments, and telescopes and was subsequently modified in 1999 & 2005 to perform the challenging cryogenic verification of Ultraviolet, Optical, and Infrared mirrors. These unique and premier specialty capabilities, coupled with its ability to meet multiple generic thermal vacuum test requirements for large payloads, make the XRCF the most versatile and adaptable space environmental test facility in the Agency. XRCF is also recognized as the newest, most cost effective, most highly utilized facility in the portfolio and as one of only five NASA facilities having unique capabilities. The XRCF is capable of supporting and has supported missions during all phases from technology development to flight verification. Programs/projects that have benefited from XRCF include Chandra, Solar X-ray Imager, Hinode, and James Webb Space Telescope. All test programs have been completed on-schedule and within budget and have experienced no delays due to facility readiness or failures. XRCF is currently supporting Strategic Astrophysics Technology Development for Cosmic Origins. Throughout the years, XRCF has partnered with and continues to maintain positive working relationships with organizations such as ATK, Ball Aerospace, Northrop Grumman Aerospace, Excelis (formerly Kodak/ITT), Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Goddard Space Flight Center, University of Alabama Huntsville, and more.

XRCF↗
NASA NTRS2016

Overview of the Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) Facility and the Research Performed in the MSG

The Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG) is a rack facility aboard the International Space Station (ISS) designed for investigation handling. The MSG was built by the European Space Agency (ESA) which also provides sustaining engineering support for the facility. The MSG has been operating on the ISS since July 2002 and is currently located in the US Laboratory Module. The unique design of the facility allows it to accommodate science and technology investigations in a "workbench" type environment. The facility has an enclosed working volume that is held at a negative pressure with respect to the crew living area. This allows the facility to provide two levels of containment for small parts, particulates, fluids, and gases. This containment approach protects the crew from possible hazardous operations that take place inside the MSG work volume. Research investigations operating inside the MSG are provided a large 255 liter enclosed work space, 1000 watts of direct current power via a versatile supply interface (120, 28, plus or minus 12, and 5 volts direct current), 1000 watts of cooling capability, video and data recording and real time downlink, ground commanding capabilities, access to ISS Vacuum Exhaust and Vacuum Resource Systems, and gaseous nitrogen supply. These capabilities make the MSG one of the most utilized facilities on ISS. The MSG has been used for over 27,000 hours of scientific payload operations. MSG investigations involve research in cryogenic fluid management, fluid physics, spacecraft fire safety, materials science, combustion, plant growth, biological studies and life support technology. The MSG facility is operated by the Payloads Operations Integration Center at Marshall Space Flight Center. Payloads may also operate remotely from different telescience centers located in the United States and Europe. The Investigative Payload Integration Manager (IPIM) is the focal to assist organizations that have payloads operating in the MSG facility. NASA provides an MSG engineering unit for payload developers to verify that their hardware is operating properly before actual operation on the ISS. This poster will provide an overview of the MSG facility, a synopsis of the research that has already been accomplished in the MSG, and an overview of video and biological upgrades. The author would like to acknowledge Teledyne Brown Engineering and the entire MSG Team for their inputs into this poster.

Jordan, Lee↗
DOE OSTI2026

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2025

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires the performance assessment (PA) (Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office [DOE-ID] 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE-ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b) for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site shall be maintained to evaluate changes that could affect the performance, design, and operating basis for the facility (DOE Manual 435.1-1 Change 3, “Radioactive Waste Management Manual,” Section IV.P. [4]). The RHLLW Disposal Facility became operational in September 2018 after the completion of operational readiness activities required by DOE Order 425.1D, “Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities,” and the issuance of the startup authorization by the Startup Approval Authority (Boston 2018). The first waste disposals at the RHLLW Disposal Facility began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility closure design, or institutional controls. This FY 2025 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the PA, CA, operating disposal authorization statement (ODAS) (ODAS 2018), ODAS technical-basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis (RWMB) (INL 2024a) to meet DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” performance objectives for the RHLLW Disposal Facility. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA at the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of DOE Order 435.1.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Monitoring Plan for the Idaho National Laboratory Remote Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility

This monitoring plan for Idaho National Laboratory’s Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility was developed to meet the requirements for monitoring low-level waste disposal facilities according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” and the guidance provided in the associated technical standard “Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation” (DOE-STD-5002-2017). The purpose of this monitoring plan is to document a monitoring strategy that includes (1) compliance monitoring activities to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards/limits and (2) performance monitoring to build confidence the facility is performing as demonstrated in the facility performance assessment (PA) (DOE-ID 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b). The de minimus impact to the aquifer predicted by the PA suggests that aquifer compliance monitoring should be augmented with performance monitoring of the drainage course materials and sedimentary interbeds in the vadose zone beneath the facility to provide a more effective means of identifying performance deviations. The monitoring approach delineated in this document was informed by the systems evaluation of natural and engineered facility features presented in the PA, an assessment of aquifer baseline conditions (INL 2017d), the dose analysis conducted in support of the PA and CA, and monitoring data collected during the first four years of facility operations (baseline monitoring phase) (INL 2023b). This plan provides monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, and sampling methods; recommendations for data evaluation; and a description of the monitoring plan implementation. Collected data will be used to demonstrate facility compliance and to identify conditions that are not consistent with the key assumptions made by the PA and CA.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2025

April 2025 Semiannual Composite Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from the Salt Waste Processing Facility is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility. Salt solution is treated at the Saltstone Production Facility and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, one Saltstone Disposal Facility waste form was prepared at Savannah River National Laboratory using the Salt Waste Processing Facility Decontaminated Salt Solution and Z-area premix material for the April 2025 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure sample. The sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash (referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”). Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion. At 43 days cured, the Saltstone sample was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. The April 2025 semiannual Cement-Free grout sample met the South Carolina Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 61-79.261.24 and 61-79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents, and met the Saltstone Production Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria that was in effect at the time of the sample collection at the Salt Waste Processing Facility.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Test Capabilities of the NASA Langley Direct Connect Supersonic Combustion Test Facility with Historical Perspective

In 1969, a combustion-heated direct-connect test facility was assembled at the NASA Langley Research Center to conduct basic research in ramjet and scramjet propulsion systems. The facility was initially used in assessing the mixing, ignition, flame holding, and combustion characteristics of various ramjet and scramjet combustors. Over the years, the facility was updated and modified to conduct increasingly longer and more complicated tests. Today, the facility is known as the Direct Connect Supersonic Combustion Test Facility and is part of the NASA Langley Scramjet Test Complex. More recently, the facility has been used by external customers to test fuel-cooled and uncooled, flight-like test articles. Tests have been conducted at ramjet flight conditions for up to 15 minutes of continuous operation. Even though the facility is nearly 50 years old, it remains a viable and useful tool in the support of various U.S. hypersonic programs.

direct connect test facility↗
DOE OSTI2025

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emission Points and Sampling Systems

Battelle–Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development laboratories in Washington State. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contracts to Battelle at Richland facilities on both the DOE Hanford Site and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Richland campus. These facilities have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The PNNL contract with DOE also includes operations at the PNNL-Sequim campus in Sequim, where there is also the potential for radionuclide air emissions. This document is a periodic update that describes current PNNL facility emission units and sampling systems. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP [40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart H]) requires an assessment of all emission units that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. Emission units are registered with the State of Washington. Potential emissions from emission units are assessed annually by PNNL staff. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based on the potential to-emit dose criteria, a graded approach to facility-identified potential impact categories, and regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission unit system performance, operation, and design information. For sampled emission units, the building, exhaust unit, control technologies, and sample extraction details are provided. Additionally, applicable configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are included. For non-sampled emission units, emission estimation and radionuclide source details are provided. Site-wide permits for the lowest potential impact category are described. Deregistered/transitioned emission unit details are also provided as necessary for at least 5 years post-closure/transition. Currently, five emission units are sampled continuously for particulate radionuclides at PNNL managed facilities on the PNNL-Richland campus (3 of the 5) and on the Hanford Site (2 of the 5). Four of these units have sampling systems that comply with the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1–2011 standard for sampling from stacks and ducts of nuclear facilities, and the fifth is grandfathered and compliant with the older ANSI N13.1–1969 standard. In addition, the PNNL-managed Hanford Site 325 Building EP 325-01-S stack is sampled continuously for emissions of tritium. No emissions sampling is required for the single licensed emission unit on the PNNL-Sequim campus.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quantitative Risk Assessment for Fuel Cell Electric Bus Hydrogen Storage and Refueling Facility

It is necessary to understand the safety implications and risk mitigation options for fuel cell electric bus fleet deployment, especially for related facilities responsible for operations such as production, storage, compression, and dispensing of hydrogen for use by the buses. In this report, we present a quantitative risk assessment for a potential fuel cell electric bus fleet that was motivated by efforts to improve resilience at the Portland International Airport but can be applicable to a range of hydrogen case studies and use cases. We estimated risk for a facility that produces, stores, compresses, and dispenses hydrogen for the fleet of buses, with a focus on individual risk to people in terms of annual frequency of fatality. We considered the frequency of hydrogen leaks that could result in harmful physical outcomes like jet fires or explosions, and the consequences of those outcomes for people. We created customized fault trees to calculate the frequencies of different sizes of leaks and event sequence diagrams to calculate ignition probabilities for the various leak sizes. We also leveraged the HyRAM+ toolkit to use these inputs to calculate overall risk for the facility, which we separated into one section responsible for producing, storing, and compressing hydrogen, and one section responsible for dispensing the hydrogen to the buses. We found that the dispensing area seemed to have a higher risk than the production/storage/compression area of the facility, largely because of the inclusion of a component with a high leak frequency (the heat exchanger used to cool the hydrogen before entering the vehicle, to prevent overheating and expansion of hydrogen in the onboard tank). For the example production and refueling facility we evaluated and the data we used for the analysis, the leak frequency had a larger impact on the risk differences between the two sections on the facility, compared to the physical outcome consequence, which was slightly different due to the varying fuel conditions, but not substantially different. Actions can be taken to prevent these hazards (e.g., lowering leak frequencies in system components) or to mitigate the consequences if they do occur (e.g., installing barriers to protect people if ignition events occur). The choice of which actions to take depends not only on safety considerations but also on space, time, staffing, feasibility, and financial constraints. Therefore, the quantitative risk assessment approach can help understand relative risk contributions from different components, leak sizes, consequences, and human actions, to prioritize risk reduction strategies and balance these parameters. The outcomes of this report may be useful for a variety of stakeholders working in the hydrogen, transportation, vehicle, and aviation sector, including those responsible for aspects like facility design, operations, and regulations. There is not a single value of risk that determines whether a hypothetical system is “safe” or not. The insights about risk mitigations may be leveraged, and the quantitative risk assessment approach can be applied to other case studies to understand risk priorities and contributions specific to different FCEB and hydrogen facility uses.

08 HYDROGEN↗