SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “monitoring verification and reporting”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

140 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2015

The Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership (SNPP): Continuing NASA Research and Applications

The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) satellite was successfully launched into a polar orbit on October 28, 2011 carrying 5 remote sensing instruments designed to provide data to improve weather forecasts and to increase understanding of long-term climate change. SNPP provides operational continuity of satellite-based observations for NOAA's Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellites (POES) and continues the long-term record of climate quality observations established by NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) satellites. In the 2003 to 2011 pre-launch timeframe, NASA's SNPP Science Team assessed the adequacy of the operational Raw Data Records (RDRs), Sensor Data Records (SDRs), and Environmental Data Records (EDRs) from the SNPP instruments for use in NASA Earth Science research, examined the operational algorithms used to produce those data records, and proposed a path forward for the production of climate quality products from SNPP. In order to perform these tasks, a distributed data system, the NASA Science Data Segment (SDS), ingested RDRs, SDRs, and EDRs from the NOAA Archive and Distribution and Interface Data Processing Segments, ADS and IDPS, respectively. The SDS also obtained operational algorithms for evaluation purposes from the NOAA Government Resource for Algorithm Verification, Independent Testing and Evaluation (GRAVITE). Within the NASA SDS, five Product Evaluation and Test Elements (PEATEs) received, ingested, and stored data and performed NASA's data processing, evaluation, and analysis activities. The distributed nature of this data distribution system was established by physically housing each PEATE within one of five Climate Analysis Research Systems (CARS) located at either at a NASA or a university institution. The CARS were organized around 5 key EDRs directly in support of the following NASA Earth Science focus areas: atmospheric sounding, ocean, land, ozone, and atmospheric composition products. The PEATES provided the system level interface with members of the NASA SNPP Science Team and other science investigators within each CARS. A sixth Earth Radiation Budget CARS was established at NASA Langley Research Center (NASA LaRC) to support instrument performance, data evaluation, and analysis for the SNPP Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Budget Energy System (CERES) instrument. Following the 2011 launch of SNPP, spacecraft commissioning, and instrument activation, the NASA SNPP Science Team evaluated the operational RDRs, SDRs, and EDRs produced by the NOAA ADS and IDPS. A key part in that evaluation was the NASA Science Team's independent processing of operational RDRs and SDRs to EDRs using the latest NASA science algorithms. The NASA science evaluation was completed in the December 2012 to April 2014 timeframe with the release of a series of NASA Science Team Discipline Reports. In summary, these reports indicated that the RDRs produced by the SNPP instruments were of sufficiently high quality to be used to create data products suitable for NASA Earth System science and applications. However, the quality of the SDRs and EDRs were found to vary greatly when considering suitability for NASA science. The need for improvements in operational algorithms, adoption of different algorithmic approaches, greater monitoring of on-orbit instrument calibration, greater attention to data product validation, and data reprocessing were prominent findings in the reports. In response to these findings, NASA, in late 2013, directed the NASA SNPP Science Team to use SNPP instrument data to develop data products of sufficiently high quality to enable the continuation of EOS time series data records and to develop innovative, practical applications of SNPP data. This direction necessitated a transition of the SDS data system from its pre-launch assessment mode to one of full data processing and production. To do this, the PEATES, which served as NASA's data product testing environment during the prelaunch and early on-orbit periods, were transitioned to Science Investigator-led Processing Systems (SIPS). The distributed data architecture was maintained in this new system by locating the SIPS at the same institutions at which the CARS and PEATES were located. The SIPS acquire raw SNPP instrument Level 0 (i.e. RDR) data over the full SNPP mission from the NOAA ADS and IDPS through the NASA SDS Data Distribution and Depository Element (SD3E). The SIPS process those data into NASA Level 1, Level 2, and global, gridded Level 3 standard products using peer-reviewed algorithms provided by members of the NASA Science Team. The SIPS work with the NASA SNPP Science Team in obtaining enhanced, refined, or alternate real-time algorithms to support the capabilities of the Direct Readout Laboratory (DRL). All data products, algorithm source codes, coefficients, and auxiliary data used in product generation are archived in an assigned NASA Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).

remote sensing↗

NASA NTRS2012

Bringing Together Users and Developers of Forest Biomass Maps

Forests store carbon and thus represent important sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Reducing uncertainty in current estimates of the amount of carbon in standing forests will improve precision of estimates of anthropogenic contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to deforestation. Although satellite remote sensing has long been an important tool for mapping land cover, until recently aboveground forest biomass estimates have relied mostly on systematic ground sampling of forests. In alignment with fiscal year 2010 congressional direction, NASA has initiated work toward a carbon monitoring system (CMS) that includes both maps of forest biomass and total carbon flux estimates. A goal of the project is to ensure that the products are useful to a wide community of scientists, managers, and policy makers, as well as to carbon cycle scientists. Understanding the needs and requirements of these data users is helpful not just to the NASA CMS program but also to the entire community working on carbon-related activities. To that end, this meeting brought together a small group of natural resource managers and policy makers who use information on forests in their work with NASA scientists who are working to create aboveground forest biomass maps. These maps, derived from combining remote sensing and ground plots, aim to be more accurate than current inventory approaches when applied at local and regional scales. Meeting participants agreed that users of biomass information will look to the CMS effort not only to provide basic data for carbon or biomass measurements but also to provide data to help serve a broad range of goals, such as forest watershed management for water quality, habitat management for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and potential use for developing payments for ecosystem service projects. Participants also reminded the CMS group that potential users include not only public sector agencies and nongovernmental organizations but also the private sector because much forest acreage in the United States is privately held and needs data for forest management. Additional key outcomes identified by meeting participants include the following: (1) Priority should be given to building into the biomass product ease of use and low costs (including costs of hardware, software, and analysis requirements), (2) CMS products should also be relevant to other biomass measures for forest watershed management, habitat protection for biodiversity, and assessment of markets for ecosystem services, (3) CMS leadership should engage with the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as they establish measuring, reporting, and verification standards, and (4) CMS leadership should continue to keep sister agencies and other organizations informed as CMS develops, particularly via the agencies active in the U.S. Global Change Research Program Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group (U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and nongovernmental organizations.

Forest↗

NASA NTRS2011

CropEx Web-Based Agricultural Monitoring and Decision Support

CropEx is a Web-based agricultural Decision Support System (DSS) that monitors changes in crop health over time. It is designed to be used by a wide range of both public and private organizations, including individual producers and regional government offices with a vested interest in tracking vegetation health. The database and data management system automatically retrieve and ingest data for the area of interest. Another stores results of the processing and supports the DSS. The processing engine will allow server-side analysis of imagery with support for image sub-setting and a set of core raster operations for image classification, creation of vegetation indices, and change detection. The system includes the Web-based (CropEx) interface, data ingestion system, server-side processing engine, and a database processing engine. It contains a Web-based interface that has multi-tiered security profiles for multiple users. The interface provides the ability to identify areas of interest to specific users, user profiles, and methods of processing and data types for selected or created areas of interest. A compilation of programs is used to ingest available data into the system, classify that data, profile that data for quality, and make data available for the processing engine immediately upon the data s availability to the system (near real time). The processing engine consists of methods and algorithms used to process the data in a real-time fashion without copying, storing, or moving the raw data. The engine makes results available to the database processing engine for storage and further manipulation. The database processing engine ingests data from the image processing engine, distills those results into numerical indices, and stores each index for an area of interest. This process happens each time new data is ingested and processed for the area of interest, and upon subsequent database entries, the database processing engine qualifies each value for each area of interest and conducts a logical processing of results indicating when and where thresholds are exceeded. Reports are provided at regular, operator-determined intervals that include variances from thresholds and links to view raw data for verification, if necessary. The technology and method of development allow the code base to easily be modified for varied use in the real-time and near-real-time processing environments. In addition, the final product will be demonstrated as a means for rapid draft assessment of imagery.

Harvey. Craig↗

NASA NTRS2018

Validation & Verification of Electrical Components B2 Test Facility

The research focus of this project is to assist in the closure of Measurement, Monitoring and Control System (MMCS) and other electrical requirements in support of the B2 Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage Green Run Test Project. Alongside this goal I am to understand project management tools to analyze and control activities/tasks associated with those items. The project I am working on will assist electrical engineers in developing and or identifying closure rationale for the MMCS and electrical requirements. Also as serving the role of a training project manager, I am to develop and maintain a method for tracking progress with estimate completion dates specifically identifying those items during this performance window. The methods I used in order to perform the research consisted of worddocuments, excel sheets, and pdf documents needed for review. For example, documents consisted of: a SLS Core Stage Green Run Facility Requirement Document (FRD) identifying the SSC MMCS and electrical requirements, a Stage Controller to SSC Interface Control Document (ICD) identifying the SSC requirements, and the B2 SLS Core Stage Green Run Test project System Requirements Document (SRD) which identifies the MMCS and electrical requirements. The files were sent to me by both mentors, Mr. Barry Robinson and Ms. Dawn Davis. Overall, the review process for the word documents and excel spreadsheets proved to be successful. The data for the electrical components were accurate and were consistent with the original recorded data. However, the consistency with the pdf documents did not follow up all the way. Attention to this mistake was made and further revisions were done in order for the data to agree with each other. Furthermore, an itinerary was designed using Microsoft Outlook in order to track progress with estimated completion dates. This project contributes to NASA/Center Missions and Goals through the Waterfall Model. The Waterfall Model is a linear system used for engineering design. In the Waterfall Model, the fourth step is Verification and Validation. This involves installation, testing, and debugging of the B2 SLS Core Stage electrical components. For the SLS Core Stage Green Run Test Project, each requirement contained in this approved requirements set will have at least one Verification Item (VI) assigned to it. During the design phase, VIs will mostly consist of Analysis or Inspection types. Design phase VIs and closure information will be documented in Dynamics Data Management System (DDMS) in the form of analysis reports and design documentation.

Bastian, Tyler↗

NASA NTRS2016

Wilson Corners SWMU 001 2015 Annual Long Term Monitoring Report Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This document presents the findings of the 2015 Long Term Monitoring (LTM) that was completed at the Wilson Corners site, located at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The objectives of the 2015 LTM event were to evaluate the groundwater flow direction and gradient, to monitor the vertical and horizontal extent of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs; including the upgradient and sidegradient extents, which are monitored every five years), and to monitor select locations internal to the dissolved groundwater plume. The 2015 LTM event included several upgradient and sidegradient monitoring wells that are not sampled annually to verify the extent of VOCs in this portion of the site. The December 2015 LTM groundwater sampling event included, depth to groundwater measurements, 40 VOC samples collected using passive diffusion bags, and one VOC sample collected using low-flow techniques. Additionally, monitoring well MW0052DD was overdrilled and abandoned using rotasonic drilling techniques. The following conclusions can be made based on the 2015 LTM results: groundwater flow is generally to the west with northwest and southwest flow components from the water table to approximately 55 feet below land surface (ft BLS); peripheral monitoring wells generally delineate VOCs to groundwater cleanup target levels (GCTLs) except for monitoring wells MW0088, MW0090, MW0095, and NPSHMW0039, which had vinyl chloride (VC) concentrations near the GCTL and MW0062, which had trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethenen (cDCE), and VC concentrations above natural attenuation default concentrations (NADCs); VOCs in interior downgradient wells generally fluctuate within historic ranges except for monitoring wells in the north-northwest portion of the site, which have increasing VC concentrations indicating potential plume migration and expansion; Historically, the vertical extents of the VOCs were delineated by monitoring wells screened greater than 60 ft BLS (MW0083 through MW0086, and MW0078). The 2015 LTM results indicate that concentrations of daughter product cDCE is greater than the NADC in MW0078 and that cDCE and VC are greater than NADCs in MW0130. TCE was greater than the GCTL in monitoring well MW130 and not detected above method detection limits (9 micrograms per Liter) in monitoring well MW0078. No GCTL exceedances were identified in monitoring wells MW0083 or MW0086; the dissolved plume footprint appears generally stable, though not fully delineated by monitoring well data in the northeast portion of the site; and 2015 LTM results generally support the existing Conceptual Site Model. Geosyntec recommends modifying the LTM program, collecting a verification sample from monitoring well MW0062, and performing a direct push technology instigation in the northnortheastern portion of the site. A cluster of monitoring wells (MW0132 [2 to 12 ft BLS], MW0133 [15 to 25 ft BLS], and MW0134 [29 to 34 ft BLS]) is proposed to delineate impacts in the northnortheast portion of the site. Geosyntec recommends installation of a vertical extent well in the center of the site (Hot Spot 2 area) post-remediation implementation.

groundwater↗

DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Autonomous Tools for Attack Surface Reduction (Final Report)

The electric power grid is a complex critical infrastructure that forms the lifeline of modern society, and its secure and reliable operation is of paramount importance to national security and economic wellbeing. However, recent findings documented in authoritative sources indicate the threat of cyber-based attacks growing in numbers and sophistication. However, securing the grid against stealthy cyberattacks is a challenging task due to legacy nature of the infrastructure coupled with dynamic nature of threat landscape and ever-growing sophistication of the adversaries. Additionally, the grid’s attack surface continues to grow with the increased dependence on digital communications and control that now extends to each consumer through smart meters and distributed energy resources. Unfortunately, this expansive surface increases the grid’s vulnerability and further exposes critical control systems in both substations and control centers. To respond to this emerging need, we had successfully assembled an interdisciplinary team with academic- industry partnership to successfully conduct research, development, evaluation, demonstration, and commercialization of attack surface reduction tools, whose goal was to significantly reduce the cyber attack surface in the North American power grid. Our proposed project was a synergistic collaborative effort leveraging the synergistic expertise of the team members across power systems, cyber security and CPS security, testbeds, field deployments and demonstration, and successful commercialization. The following are the specific tasks that have been successfully completed two phases (2016-2020). Phase I: Task 1: Developed and implemented a robust Project Management and Data Management Plan, coupled with a well thought out Risk Mitigation Plan. Task 2.1: Developed a comprehensive framework that continually assesses and autonomously reduces the attack surface for the power grid control environment spanning across substations, control center and the SCADA network to significantly reduce the risks of cyber attacks. Task 2.2: Developed attack surface analysis techniques, metrics, and tools that assess the attack surface at multiple levels including the control center, substations, and the SCADA network. Task 2.3: Developed attack surface reduction techniques and tools that dynamically reduce attack surface and hence increase attacker’s cost without interfering in the critical functions of the system. Task 2.4: Prototyped, implemented, and quantitatively evaluated/validated the techniques and tools on a realistic industrial CPS security testbed environment by leveraging the unique resources of the team. Task 3: Developed Commercialization plan to transition the developed tools into power system industry stakeholders for a broader adoption by leveraging the expertise of our industrial members. Phase II: Task 4: Successfully completed field demonstration, verification, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the attack surface analysis and reduction techniques on a realistic utility testbed environment. This also involved the development of realistic scenarios, sound metrics, data sets, evaluation criteria, and documentation. Technology integration & Field demonstration: The project had significantly advanced the state-of-the-art research and practice in improving the cybersecurity of our nation’s power grid infrastructure against cyber threats. In particular, the proposed, designed, and deployed attack surface analysis and reduction algorithms and tools have contributed to significantly reducing the exposure and risk of the devices, substations, and the integrated SCADA/EMS/ DMS grid environment to cyber threat. Strong demonstration and evaluation techniques have verified the feasibility of the developed techniques on realistic cyber-physical testbeds and utility partner's real grid environment, and collaborative research and evaluation of attack surface reduction techniques (for wide-are monitoring and control) within a vendor (GE) EMS platform. The Attack Host Analyzer (AHA) tool that was developed through this project was made available through GitHub.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS2022

KSC Headquarters Building Area SWMU 104 Soil Interim Measure Report for LOC 2D and LOC 2E Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This Interim Measure (IM) Report for Location of Concern (LOC) 2D and LOC 2E summarizes the activities associated with implementation of an IM to address soil and concrete contamination at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Headquarters Building Area (KHQA) located at KSC, Florida. KHQA has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) 104 under KSC’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The IM consisted of excavating/removing residual polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in soil and concrete from two separate areas, LOC 2D and LOC 2E, which were associated with electrical transformer locations. IM activities were conducted in accordance with the Interim Measure Work Plan (IMWP), Revision 1, for KHQA dated June 2018, which was approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in a correspondence letter dated April 2016 and the United States Environmental Protection Agency in a correspondence letter dated August 2018. The objective of the IM was to remove all remaining contaminated media with total PCB concentrations greater than the State of Florida Residential Soil Cleanup Target Level (RSCTL) (0.5 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]). This cleanup goal meets unrestrictive re-use conditions in Florida, and is below federal regulations for PCB Bulk Remediation Waste Cleanup of 1 mg/kg for high occupancy, unrestricted use areas, as outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761.61(a). The timeline of the IM was coordinated with demolition of the former KSC Headquarters Building (demolished in 2021) in order to safely remove contaminated media after electrical equipment was de-energized and removed from the site. Excavation activities were conducted between January 10, 2022, and February 8, 2022, and included two waste streams for off-site disposal: (1) PCB-remediation waste greater than or equal to 50 mg/kg, and (2) PCB-remediation waste less than 50 mg/kg. A total of approximately 347 cubic yards (478 tons) of PCB-contaminated soil and concrete was initially removed from the LOC 2D and LOC 2E areas, as defined in the IMWP. An additional 4.35 tons of soil and concrete were removed based on verification sampling, which was conducted until the cleanup goal was achieved. The total area of excavation from both LOC 2D and LOC 2E was approximately 5,186 square feet (0.12 acres), and excavation depths ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 feet below land surface Excavated soils and concrete were stockpiled based on waste stream and subsequently transported and disposed of at Waste Connections of Osceola County, LLC – JED Landfill in St. Cloud, Florida (PCBs less than 50 mg/kg) or the Chemical Waste Management Landfill in Emelle, Alabama (PCBs greater than or equal to 50 mg/kg). Following excavation, clean backfill was brought to the site and provided to the Demolition Contractor to complete backfill and grading in conjunction with their final site restoration activities from building demolition. Post-IM groundwater sampling was conducted in May 2022 at three monitoring wells installed in April 2022 to confirm that PCBs did not leach into groundwater. These wells were installed where the highest PCB concentrations were detected at LOC 2D, LOC 2E, and from the Building Perimeter IM (previously completed in 2020). All PCB results in groundwater were non-detect. Volatile organic compounds were also analyzed based on potential past use of solvents in transformers with PCB-dielectric fluids and the potential release of dielectric fluids containing volatile organic compounds, and all results were non-detect. Based on completion of a successful IM at LOC 2D and LOC 2E, as well as previous remedial actions that have addressed other contamination at KHQA (SWMU 104), No Further Action without controls will be recommended for SWMU 104. NASA will submit separate Site Rehabilitation Completion Order request documentation for SWMU 104 to support an NFA without controls recommendation.

PCB↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NASA NTRS2024

Workshop on the Role of Design Assurance in System-Wide Safety’s Safety Demonstrator Series

This report summarizes a three-hour hybrid in-person/online workshop on June 7, 2024 on the topic of design assurance and the Safety Demonstrator Series (SDS), which was held at NASA Ames Research Center. The SDS provides an operational demonstration of, and recommendations for, requirements and standards necessary to monitor, assess, and mitigate risks to assure safety in disaster-oriented operations. Over sixty NASA personnel participated in the workshop. Four main topics were discussed: (1) assurance needs for the Safety Demonstrator Series, (2) assurance and the In-Time Aviation Safety Management System (IASMS), (3) in-time assurance: existing efforts and future opportunities, and (4) demonstrating assurance tools in the Safety Demonstrators. Key takeaways are as follows: 1. Design assurance tools can be used to assure an In-Time Aviation Safety Management System, the systems that comprise it, and other systems or missions. Assurance must consider both systems and components and include the interactions between elements in both a systems/aircraft context and a systems-of-systems/airspace context. 2. Design-time assurance activities can support the identification of monitors needed for operational assurance activities (i.e., the “monitor” function in the monitor-assess-mitigate paradigm at the heart of the IASMS concept). 3. A major opportunity for design-time assurance tools to contribute to the IASMS concept is to support rapid re-validation of systems. This will be particularly important for (1) supporting novel operations in the IASMS, where operational data may disprove design-time assumptions (motivating re-analysis of system safety) and (2) adapting technologies (e.g., AI/ML for autonomous operations) to new operational domains, where there may be new or different safety considerations not included in the initial scope of operations. 4. There are several design assurance tools under development in the System-Wide Safety project that can support assurance of Services, Functions, and Capabilities (SFCs) in the Safety Demonstrators. Transitioning these tools from one-off research projects into a functioning part of IASMS assurance will require closer integration between these tools. 5. It is not clear whether the role of design assurance tools is primarily as a part of IASMS architecture or as an external check on IASMS. The workshop consisted of four discussion topics initiated via four lightning talks by System-Wide Safety researchers. Discussions utilized Mural to engage both in-person and online participants in the hybrid format. Polls and surveys were also utilized to gather participant input. The workshop closed with a reflection activity for participants, as well as new ideas for collaboration and coordination of ongoing System-Wide Safety research.

design assurance↗

DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The WTP LAB stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the DV of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the maximum conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be = 20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be = 20% COV. Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stacks must agree within 5% COV. In general, these criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Some specific items for each scale model and full-scale stack comparison should be noted in assessing the validity of the verification tests. The LB-C2 scale model stacks were performed with single fan operations at then-minimum flow conditions. These conditions resulted in DV values that were too low to meet the DV range criterion, and therefore are unable to be used in qualifying single fan operations on the full-scale stack. However, the single fan operations demonstrated COV values for velocity uniformity as well as flow angles that were comparable to the dual-fan operations at high flows. Overall, the test conditions and test results were within the range of acceptable values based on current design flow rates. Single fan operations are expected to only occur infrequently for maintenance needs and is therefore not a planned operating condition at this time. The LB-S1 scale model stacks were performed at three fan combinations, and in each combination, at least one test was performed at the then-minimum flow conditions as well as at then-maximum flow conditions. While the then-minimum flow conditions result in a DV range that is lower than the verification test DV value, and therefore does not meet the criterion, these tests are un-necessary for the verification test acceptance. The normal and maximum flow conditions from the scale model stack tests meet the DV range criterion, and the velocity uniformity test results compare favorably with the full-scale stack results. The LB-S2 scale model stacks were performed at nominally the same maximum flow condition; however, the 6 DV value for Fan A operation was slightly lower than the full-scale stack test DV. The COV values from the scale model stacks were comparable between the Fan A and Fan B results, and the overall test conditions are within the range of acceptable values. The stack verification is therefore considered acceptable for both Fan A and Fan B operations. The verification tests were performed at flows that were appreciably higher than the design conditions, and further elevated flow rates would be beyond the range of acceptable DV. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stacks meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the scale model test reports (Glissmeyer, Flaherty, and Piepel (2001), Glissmeyer and Geeting (2013)) may require additional tests and additional analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

North Dakota Integrated Carbon Storage Complex Feasibility Study. Final report

In spring 2017, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) initiated an effort to determine the feasibility of developing a commercial-scale CO 2 geologic storage complex able to store 50+ million tonnes (Mt) of CO 2 in central North Dakota safely, permanently, and economically. The objective was to fulfill the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative and address technical and nontechnical challenges specific to commercial-scale deployment of a CO2 storage project. The findings clearly show that the concept of capturing CO 2 from a lignite-fired electrical generation facility in central North Dakota and safely and permanently storing the CO 2 in the deep subsurface is indeed technically, economically, and socially feasible. This project evaluated two study areas and their respective geologic storage complexes located adjacent to separate coal-fired facilities in North Dakota: the Basin Electric Power Cooperative (BEPC)-owned Great Plains Synfuels Plant (GPSP) and the Minnkota Power Cooperative (Minnkota)-owned Milton R. Young Station (MRYS). These locations, one with CO 2 capture in place and an existing CO 2 pipeline, are bolstered by progressive North Dakota pore space ownership and long-term liability laws. These elements and a motivated team created an ideal synergistic scenario for ensuring success of the CarbonSAFE Initiative and promoting North Dakota’s statewide vision for carbon management. The project included drilling two new geologic characterization wells, integrating an existing 3-D seismic survey, creating a geologic model subsequently used for injection simulation, a risk assessment, public outreach, and generating a site development plan based on results. In addition, the performance of select National Risk Assessment Partnership tools was evaluated. The geologic characterization wells were drilled ~5600 feet deep to the Broom Creek Formation; ~350 feet of core was retrieved from each well. The core included the Broom Creek (targeted injection zone) and a portion of the overlying Opeche Shale (seal). The Flemmer-1 well, west of Beulah, North Dakota, yielded 169 feet of sandstone. The BNI-1 well located south of Center, North Dakota, yielded 124 feet of sandstone. In each case, laboratory analysis of the sandstone showed permeability in the 300–1000-mD range, with porosity of 20%–30%. The Flemmer-1 well was sited within the boundaries of an existing 3-D seismic survey. Colocating the well with the seismic survey maximized the relationship between new and legacy data and developed a first-of-its-kind interpretation of the geologic fabric of the Broom Creek. Geologic characterization data were integrated into a 5544-mi 2 geocellular model that encompassed both new wells and stratigraphy from the surface to the Amsden Formation (underlying the Broom Creek). The model was later expanded vertically to include the deeper Black Island–Deadwood interval to examine its potential viability as a storage target. The geocellular model provided the foundation for dynamic simulation of CO 2 into the Broom Creek. Results of the simulation suggest that the Broom Creek could accept the DOE target rate of 2 Mt/yr of CO 2 into as few as two wells. To bracket the expected capture from MRYS, simulations were also investigated for a 4-Mt/yr rate near MRYS. Although more wells are needed (two additional), the Broom Creek still has the storage resource to accept the CO 2 at the increased rate. A risk assessment exercise was conducted to identify and assess technical and nontechnical risks that could prevent potential candidate storage complexes within the study area from serving as commercial storage sites. The assessment identified and evaluated six technical risk categories: 1) CO 2 injectivity, 2) storage capacity, 3) lateral migration of CO 2 , 4) lateral pressure propagation, 5) vertical migration of CO 2 or formation brine, and 6) induced seismicity. Following two rounds of analysis and scoring, no risks were determined to preclude continued efforts to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) in central North Dakota. The risk assessment results will be used to guide future site characterization, modeling and simulation, and monitoring activities. A specific nontechnical strategic risk based on challenges that may be realized in amalgamation of pore space resulted in vertically expanding the geologic model to incorporate the potential for stacked storage in multiple saline reservoirs. By including the Black Island–Deadwood interval (the basal sedimentary reservoir in this region), the amalgamated areal extent could be reduced by as much as 45%. Working with a smaller geographic area reduces risks and costs associated with monitoring and pore space leasing. An economic evaluation incorporating capture; transport (<5 mi); Class VI wells; permitting; and monitoring, verification, and accounting suggests implementing commercial-scale CCUS is economically attractive if the federal tax benefits of 45Q are included. This is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of CO 2 capture and geologic storage at MRYS through its Project Tundra initiative, indicating that there is a business case for CCUS in central North Dakota. Currently, North Dakota is the only state with underground injection control (UIC) Class VI primacy. Built into the North Dakota Century Code is a series of regulatory requirements that guide the process to obtain a Class VI CO 2 storage facility permit. As part of this project, a site development plan was compiled to assure compliance with North Dakota’s requirements to permit a commercial-scale CO 2 storage operation and includes a prospective time line encompassing a general breakdown of activities. In total, an estimated 30 months would be needed to execute the necessary steps to attain a North Dakota CO 2 storage facility permit. Outreach was an integral part of the project and encompassed any project-related activity that had contact or exposure beyond the project team. The goals of outreach were to foster an environment from which stakeholders could make informed decisions about the project and gauge community receptiveness to a CCUS project. A consistent set of messages and outreach products were developed in conjunction with an outreach advisory board that integrated project partners and team members. To gauge public acceptability of geologically storing CO 2 , 5611 households in the project area were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey results indicate that the public attitude regarding CCUS is neutral to positive, with strong sentiment that CO 2 capture and storage may be an approach to maintain the economic vitality of the region. To achieve project objectives, critical support in the form of financial backing, engineering evaluations, site access, outreach collaboration, operations data, risk assessment/evaluation, and software access was provided by BEPC, the North Dakota Industrial Commission Lignite Research Council, ALLETE Clean Energy, BNI Energy, North American Coal Corporation, Minnkota, Prairie Public Broadcasting, Computer Modelling Group Ltd., and Schlumberger.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗