Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “LOGIC PROGRAMMING”

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.

1,137 records · Page 64
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Tank Waste LDR Organics Data Summary for Sample-and-Send (Rev.1A)

The presence of organic chemicals regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) adds complexity to treating and disposing of the low activity fraction of Hanford tank waste if a low temperature treatment method such as grouting is used (SRNL-STI-2020-00228). The complexity arises from the fact that the baseline vitrification method is considered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as providing adequate thermal treatment for organics; a status not automatically extended to a lowtemperature process, such as solidifying the waste in a cementitious waste form. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) LDR program is intended to ensure that wastes are properly treated prior to disposal. Proper treatment makes hazardous waste less harmful to groundwater by reducing the mobility and/or toxicity of the hazardous constituents in the waste. EPA guidance indicates that stabilization/solidification of waste for organics could be considered impermissible dilution under the LDR dilution prohibition. In addition, waste storage activities at Hanford have required transferring and blending waste within the tank system and these activities have potentially altered the concentrations of the hazardous constituents. The LDR dilution prohibition found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 268.3 states that “… no generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall in any way dilute a restricted waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste as a substitute for adequate treatment …”. Hence, if LAW is to be treated using low temperature stabilization (such as cementation), then it is important to demonstrate both how past storage activities have contributed to the removal (by vacuum evaporation), or destruction (by in situ decomposition) of the LDR organics and how future retrieval and waste feed preparation will contribute to their removal (by filtration and ion exchange). Demonstrating these processes helps validate that cementation without additional organic treatment does not necessarily represent impermissible dilution. To aid in implementing cementitious solidification of Low Activity Waste (LAW), WRPS has been developing a regulatory and processing LDR treatment variance strategy termed “Sampleand-Send” that relies, in part, on demonstrating that in situ decomposition reactions along with historic evaporation of tank waste has destroyed or removed most of the LDR organics possibly associated with Hanford Tank Waste (SRNL-STI-2020-00582, SRNL-STI-2021-00453, SRNL-STI-2022-00391). Under the Sample-and-Send concept, Hanford tank waste would be retrieved, processed through a Tank-Side Cesium Removal-like system, and staged as a candidate feed that would then be sampled to confirm the waste acceptance criteria is met for solidification in an LAW cementitious treatment facility. If it can be shown that LDR organics are at concentrations below the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for cementitious stabilization and have been sufficiently removed (by historic evaporation or by filtration and ion exchange during Cs removal), destroyed (by historic in situ decomposition), or are not soluble in LAW above the WAC then additional organic treatment is not needed prior to creating a cementitious final waste form and the concept of Sample-and-Send would be proposed to establish a non-rulemaking site-specific treatment variance using the specified method of treatment “STABL” to remove sampling requirements of the waste form after treatment. Waste not meeting the WAC could either be routed to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant for LAW vitrification, or further processed by evaporation or chemical oxidation before solidifying in a cementitious waste form. A key component in implementing the Sample-and-Send strategy is identifying which of the 207 LDR organic compounds associated with the RCRA Part A permit application waste codes for the Double Shell Tanks (DSTs) and Single Shell Tanks (SSTs) and any applicable Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs) from 40 CFR 268.48 should be considered as potentially present and thus subject to regulation. In addition, it is also necessary to understand the solubility volatility, and reactivity of these compounds in LAW to identify which of the potentially present LDR organic compounds are not soluble above regulatory levels or are likely to have been removed by historic evaporation or destroyed by in situ decomposition reactions. If there are potentially present LDR organic compounds that have not been removed or destroyed and are soluble above regulatorily significant concentrations then a treatability variance may be needed for these species to eliminate any concerns pertaining to impermissible dilution. The spreadsheet accompanying this calculation report contains the data and logic computations needed to screen the list of 207 LDR organics associated with Hanford tank waste to identify those potentially present and to indicate which compounds may need to be included in a treatability variance.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Development of Analysis Methods that Integrate Numeric and Textual Equipment Reliability Data

Within the Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) program, the Risk-Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway is performing collaborative research on the development and deployment of technologies designed to assist operating nuclear power plants (NPPs) to reduce operating costs improve plant reliability and availability. One of the RISA research areas is focusing on the development of methods and tools designed to optimize plant operations (e.g., maintenance/replacement schedules, optimal maintenance postures for plant structures, systems, and components [SSCs]) in a manner that is more cost effective than current approaches and makes better use of available SSC health data. The Risk-Informed Asset Management (RIAM) project targets this research area by creating a direct bridge between component equipment reliability (ER) data and system engineer decision making regarding maintenance activity scheduling and component aging management. In this respect, one challenge that NPP system engineers are facing is that the amount of ER data being continuously generated is not only extremely large in size, but it comes in different forms: textual (e.g., condition or maintenance reports) and numeric (e.g., generated by monitoring systems). All these data elements provide them with valuable insights and information regarding: 1) the discovery of anomalous behaviors or degradation trends, 2) the identification of the possible causes behind such behaviors/trends, and 3) the prediction of their direct consequences. However, several challenges have proved to be roadblocks to this process. While some of these challenges are technical in nature (i.e., data are often distributed over several physical servers/databases), others are conceptual in nature: data elements come in different formats (e.g., numeric or textual), and measured values have different scales (e.g., vibration spectra and oil temperature). The activities performed by the RIAM project during FY23 directly tackles the need to simultaneously integrate the analysis of ER data in all its forms, numeric and textual. Note that such task has never been performed before due to the complexity of the systems under consideration but, most importantly, because of the technical challenges behind the harmonization of ER data formats and the lack of adequate computational methods to analyze them. Our approach borrows ideas and concepts from the medical field where integration of several data sources is vital to assist medical practitioners to perform correct diagnosis and indicate optimal treatments. In our view a NPP asset is equivalent to a patient in a medical context. The main difference is the complexity of a human body is a magnitude more complex when compared to typical assets commonly present in NPPs (e.g., centrifugal pumps, or motor operated valves). This simplifies our first requirement when analyzing heterogenous ER data formats: to put data into “context”. Context is here intended as the additional piece of information that is needed by ER data analysis tools to understand what these data elements are referring to, i.e., which king of knowledge they are generating. In our context, this knowledge can be translated into models that capture the form and functional architecture of assets/systems, their dependencies, and how they interact. These models actually emulate the knowledge that that NPP system engineers possess about assets and systems; this is their key of success when analyzing ER data, their challenge is ability to handle large amount of data. Here, we employ model-based system engineering (MBSE) models of systems and assets to represent and capture their architecture and functional, i.e. cause-effect, relations. Then, ER data elements are processed by identifying first of all which elements of the developed MBSE elements they are referring to. For numeric ER data this task is fairly easy since it is possible to precisely pinpoint what MBSE elements the corresponding sensor are observing (e.g., bearing temperature of a centrifugal pump). Task is much harder for textual data since the information contained in issue or maintenance reports needs to “be understood” by a computational tool. Here we called this process as “knowledge extraction”. Once again, we borrow the experience in the medical field where methods to extract knowledge from textual data have been developed in the past decade. The missing element for us is the availability of a complete dictionary of NPP related concepts (in addition to the MBSE models presented earlier) that can put “text into context”. In FY23, such dictionary has been developed along with all the computational elements required for knowledge extraction. Lastly, once numeric and textual ER data elements have been processed and “understood”, then the last step is the discovery of possible cause-effect relations among them. This is performed by observing if a logical connection through the MBSE models exists, and if the

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2015

Pre-Mission Input Requirements to Enable Successful Sample Collection by a Remote Field/EVA Team

This paper is intended to evaluate the sample collection process with respect to sample characterization and decision making. In some cases, it may be sufficient to know whether a given outcrop or hand sample is the same as or different from previous sampling localities or samples. In other cases, it may be important to have more in-depth characterization of the sample, such as basic composition, mineralogy, and petrology, in order to effectively identify the best sample. Contextual field observations, in situ/handheld analysis, and backroom evaluation may all play a role in understanding field lithologies and their importance for return. For example, whether a rock is a breccia or a clast-laden impact melt may be difficult based on a single sample, but becomes clear as exploration of a field site puts it into context. The FINESSE (Field Investigations to Enable Solar System Science and Exploration) team is a new activity focused on a science and exploration field based research program aimed at generating strategic knowledge in preparation for the human and robotic exploration of the Moon, near-Earth asteroids (NEAs) and Phobos and Deimos. We used the FINESSE field excursion to the West Clearwater Lake Impact structure (WCIS) as an opportunity to test factors related to sampling decisions. In contract to other technology-driven NASA analog studies, The FINESSE WCIS activity is science-focused, and moreover, is sampling-focused, with the explicit intent to return the best samples for geochronology studies in the laboratory. This specific objective effectively reduces the number of variables in the goals of the field test and enables a more controlled investigation of the role of the crewmember in selecting samples. We formulated one hypothesis to test: that providing details regarding the analytical fate of the samples (e.g. geochronology, XRF/XRD, etc.) to the crew prior to their traverse will result in samples that are more likely to meet specific analytical objectives than samples collected in the absence of this premission information. We conducted three tests of this hypothesis. Our investigation was designed to document processes, tools and procedures for crew sampling of planetary targets. This is not meant to be a blind, controlled test of crew efficacy, but rather an effort to recognize the relevant variables that enter into sampling protocol and to develop recommendations for crew and backroom training in future endeavors. Methods: One of the primary FINESSE field deployment objectives was to collect impact melt rocks and impact melt-bearing breccias from a number of locations around the WCIS structure to enable high precision geochronology of the crater to be performed [1]. We conducted three tests at WCIS after two full days of team participation in field site activities, including using remote sensing data and geologic maps, hiking overland to become familiar with the terrain, and examining previously-collected samples from other islands. In addition, the team members shared their projects and techniques with the entire team. We chose our "crew members" as volunteers from the team, all of whom had had moderate training in geologic fieldwork and became familiar with the general field setting. The first two tests were short, focused tests of our hypothesis. Test A was to obtain hydrothermal vugs; Test B was to obtain impact melt and intrusive rock as well as the contact between the two to check for contact metamorphism and age differences. In both cases, the test director had prior knowledge of the site geology and had developed a study-specific objective for sampling prior to deployment. Prior to the field deployment, the crewmember was briefed on the sampling objective and the laboratory techniques that would be used on the samples. At the field sites (Fig. 2), the crewmember was given 30 minutes to survey a small section of outcrop (10-15 m) and acquire a suite of three samples. The crewmember talked through his process and the test director kept track of the timeline in verbal cues to the crewmember. At the conclusion, the team member conducting the scientific study appraised the samples and train of thought. Test C was a 90-minute EVA simulation using two crewmembers working out of line-of-sight in communication with a science backroom. The science objectives were determined by the science backroom team in advance using a Gigapan image of the outcrop (Fig. 1). The science team formulated hypotheses for the outcrop units and created sampling objectives for impact-melt lithologies; the science team turned these into a science plan, which they communicated to the crew in camp prior to crew deployment. As part of the science plan, the science team also discussed their sample needs in depth with the crewmembers, including laboratory methods, objectives, and samples sizes needed. During the deployment, the two crewmembers relayed real-time information to the science backroom by radio with no time delay. Both the crew and science team re-evaluated their hypotheses and science plans in real-time. Discussion: Upon evaluation, we found that the focused tests (Tests A and B) were successful in meeting their scientific objectives. The crewmember used their knowledge of how the samples were to be used in further study (technique, sample size, and scientific need) to focus on the sampling task. The crewmember was comfortable spending minimal time describing and mapping the outcrop. The crewmember used all available time to get a good sample. The larger test was unsuccessful in meeting the sampling objectives. When the crewmembers began describing the lithologies, it was quickly apparent that the lithologies were not as the backroom expected and had communicated to the crew. When the outcrop wasn't as expected, the crew members instinctively switched to field characterization mode, taking significant time to characterize and map the outcrop. One crew member admitted that he "kind of lost track" of the sampling strategy as he focused on the basic outcrop characterization. This is the logical first step in a field geology campaign, that a significant amount of time must be spent by the crew and backroom to understand the outcrop and its significance. Basic field characterization of an outcrop is a focused activity that takes significant time and training [2, 3]. Sampling of representational lithologies can be added to this activity for little cost [4]. However, we have shown that identification of unusual or specific samples for laboratory study also takes significant time and knowledge. We suggest that sampling of this type be considered a separate activity from field characterization, and that crewmembers be trained in sampling needs for different kinds of studies (representative lithologies vs. specialized samples) to acquire a mindset for sampling similar to field mapping. Sampling activities should be given a significant amount of specifically allocated time in scheduling EVA activities; and in the better case, that sampling be done as a second activity to a previously studied outcrop where both crew and backroom are comfortable with its context and characteristics. Our hypothesis posited that crewmember knowledge of how the samples would be used upon return would aid them in choosing relevant samples. Our testing bore this hypothesis out to some extent. We therefore recommend that crewmember training should include exposure to the laboratory techniques and analyses that will be used on the samples to foster this knowledge. There is also the potential for increasing crewmember contextual knowledge real-time in the field through the introduction of in situ geochemical technologies such as field portable XRF. The presence of field portable geochemical technology could enable the astronauts to interrogate the samples for K abundance real-time, ensuring they could collect valuable and dateable samples [5]. Though simulations such as these can teach us a fair bit about decision making processes and timeline building, one EVA participant noted that when he wasn't collecting "real" samples, he wasn't at his best. This effect suggests that higher-fidelity studies involving truly remote participants conducting actual scientific studies merit further attention to capture lessons for application to future crew situations.

sample collection↗