Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “NPD”

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.

112 records · Page 7

Applying Technology and Experience to Ensure Safe In Situ Decommissioning - 19587

Permanent entombment of a radioactively contaminated facility as a decommissioning option (In Situ Decommissioning, ISD) has been completed for DOE facilities at the Savannah River Site (P and Reactors, HWCTR reactor), Hanford (U Canyon) and Idaho (CP-601/604),and is currently being considered for implementation at a limited number of selected DOE facilities as well as for the NPD and WR-1 reactors in Canada and various facilities in the United Kingdom. A general description of an ISD project encompasses an entombed facility which in some cases is limited to just the below-grade portion of a facility with the above-ground portion being decommissioned, packaged and disposed in a conventional manner. The entombed portions of the facility are of robust construction, generally of reinforced concrete exterior, that provides a migration barrier between internal contamination and the environment with significant internal void spaces backfilled or grouted. The scope of entombment may include ancillary equipment and structures and may contain radioactive and hazardous materials and contamination within the facility and waste imported from outside the facility. ISD is most often a permanent decommissioning end-state although in some instances (e.g. the U.K.) there may be a need to revisit the ISD facility after 300 years to effect traditional decommissioning. The defined completion (the end-state) of the decommissioned facility is therefore project-specific and in conformance with environmental approval processes and planned future activities. In all cases however, the final condition is passive, meaning that there are no requirements for ongoing operational systems or equipment within the decommissioned facility. ISD projects in the USA are presumed to be under indefinite institutional control of the U.S. Government. The regulatory framework in the U.S. is currently in place to provide assurance that the risk posed by an ISD facility is within regulatory acceptance criteria. (The framework in the U.K. and Canada is evolving towards that in the USA). Special emphasis is placed on the fact that an entombed facility is not considered a waste disposal facility; rather it is a decommissioning end-state option. ISD does not eliminate the need for effective and careful management of contaminated materials and structures, nor does it serve to abandon contaminated buildings in place. Further, ISD is safe and cost-effective for a relatively small number of facilities across the DOE Complex. This paper explores the current programmatic considerations and technical aspects of the ISD process and discuss the measures taken to ensure that an 'entombed' facility is safe for both site workers and the general population. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Hydropower Baseline Cost Modeling, Version 2

Recent resource assessments conducted by the United States Department of Energy have identified significant opportunities for expanding hydropower generation through the addition of power to non-powered dams and on undeveloped stream-reaches. Additional interest exists in the powering of existing water resource infrastructure such as conduits and canals, upgrading and expanding existing hydropower facilities, and the construction new pumped storage hydropower. Understanding the potential future role of these hydropower resources in the nation’s energy system requires an assessment of the environmental and techno-economic issues associated with expanding hydropower generation. To facilitate these assessments, this report seeks to fill the current gaps in publically available hydropower cost estimating tools that can support the national-scale evaluation of hydropower resources.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

On the Modeling of Urban Air Mobility Vehicle Takeoff and Landing Operations in the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool

Urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles are anticipated to operate in close proximity to the public. A possible barrier to the introduction of UAM vehicles as a transit solution is their community noise impact, particularly around vertiports. The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is the mandated tool to assess aircraft noise and other environmental impacts due to federal actions at civilian airports, vertiports, or in U.S. airspace for commercial flight operations. However, AEDT was designed to model fixed-wing aircraft and conventional helicopter operations, not UAM vehicles. Prior work by the authors showed significant differences in noise contours of UAM departures and approaches when modeling operations as fixed-wing and helicopter types in AEDT. This paper identifies the sources of those differences. Additionally, a NASA time-marching simulation tool is used to generate noise exposure predictions for equivalent operations to help identify differences associated with the noise model implemented in AEDT and offer possible changes to assess UAM community noise impact more consistently with simulation-based modeling.

aeroacoustics↗

On the Modeling of Urban Air Mobility Vehicle Takeoff and Landing Operations in the FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool

Urban air mobility (UAM) vehicles are anticipated to operate in close proximity to the public. A possible barrier to the introduction of UAM vehicles as a transit solution is their community noise impact, particularly around vertiports. The Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) is the mandated tool to assess aircraft noise and other environmental impacts due to federal actions at civilian airports, vertiports, or in U.S. airspace for commercial flight operations. However, AEDT was designed to model fixed-wing aircraft and conventional helicopter operations, not UAM vehicles. Prior work by the authors showed significant differences in noise contours of UAM departures and approaches when modeling operations as fixed-wing and helicopter types in AEDT. This paper identifies the sources of those differences. Additionally, a NASA time-marching simulation tool is used to generate noise exposure predictions for equivalent operations to help identify differences associated with the noise model implemented in AEDT and offer possible changes to assess UAM community noise impact more consistently with simulation-based modeling.

aeroacoustics↗