SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Facilities”

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.

At least 163 records · Page 9

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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 OSTI2022

Towards an HPC Complementary Computing Facility

This Letter considers the design for computing facilities that are complementary to the leadership class High Performance Computing (HPC) facilities. This design envisions a future where funding agencies are allocating greater resources for leadership class facilities and these facilities will provide a significant part of the total compute cycles for HEP Experiments. While a leadership class facility (LCF) may provide cycles and advanced architectures, the facility does not necessarily provide all of the services needed to help HEP users make the best use of the HPC facility, as well as the services needed to provide computing for workflows that are not a good fit for the HPC facilities. This Letter outlines some of the necessary components of a facility designed to provide those services and capabilities.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Integral and Separate Effects Test Facilities To Support Water Cooled Small Modular Reactors: A Review

This study reviews previous experimental facilities and test programs relevant to water-cooled reactor system design and analysis to meet regulatory compliances. This study aims to find the best solution for designing the required experiments, obtaining necessary test data, and verifying the developed computer code/models to support the new reactor design and development while minimizing cost and time while leveraging experiences from previous facilities to minimize. Nuclear reactor licensing requires supportive design, analysis, and experimental results to ensure the safety of the full-scale prototype reactor in regular operation, as well as during postulated accident scenarios. These reactor design analyses are generally performed using system codes and other associated simulation tools that require assessment, verification and validation using an appropriate experimental dataset. Experimental facilities used for reactor system safety analysis and system code assessments are categorized into integral effects test (IET) and separate effects test (SET) facilities. Further, these IET and SET experiments and studies use geometrically scaled systems to reproduce the prototype system behavior at a reasonable cost, albeit with some scaling-related distortions. The design challenge of these model facilities is to identify and minimize scaling distortions while reproducing the most important operational phenomena in steady-state operation and in postulated accident scenarios. Lessons learned from previous experimental facilities, models, and correlations can support the development of new multipurpose, scaled, hybrid, integrated, and modular experimental facilities for advanced light water-cooled small modular reactors (SMRs). Successful operation of these facilities can significantly reduce upfront reactor development and demonstration costs and time to deployment.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

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 OSTI2021

Saltstone Waste Characterization Analysis - Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Waste Stream (Q4 CY2020)

The Saltstone Production and Disposal Facility is designed and permitted by the state of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to treat and dispose of low-level radioactive and hazardous liquid waste (salt solution) remaining from the processing of radioactive material at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Low-level waste (LEW) aqueous streams from the Effluent Treatment Project (ETP) and decontaminated solutions from the Tank Closure Cesium Removal Unit (TCCR) and the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) are stored in Tank 50 until the LEW can be transferred to the Saltstone Facility for treatment and disposal. In the past, decontaminated solution from the Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) was stored in Tank 50 until the LEW could be transferred to the Saltstone Facility for treatment and disposal. MCU is currently in a suspended operations state. LEW that meets the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) can be transferred, stored, and treated in the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF) for subsequent disposal as saltstone grout in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Sampling will be conducted as new waste streams are identified for treatment and disposal at the Saltstone Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) and Z-Area Industrial Solid Waste Landfill (ISWLF), Facility ID# 025500-1603, General Condition B.9 or every six years in accordance with South Carolina (SC) Regulation 61-107.19 Parti C, “Solid Waste Management: Solid Waste Landfills and Structural Fill - General Requirements.”

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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↗

DOE OSTI2020

Update to the Performance Assessment for the Savannah River Site Saltstone Disposal Facility - 20124

In 2019, Savannah River Remediation developed a revision to the performance assessment (PA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office (SR) for the near-surface disposal of low-level waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Soluble waste from SRS Tank Farms undergoes salt processing to remove cesium and other high activity constituents. The low-activity decontaminated salt solution (DSS) is then immobilized by mixing it into a cementitious waste form known as saltstone. After mixing, the saltstone is poured into leak-tight concrete vaults, known as saltstone disposal units (SDUs), where the waste form cures. By the time of facility closure, the SDF is expected to consist of 15 SDUs with a combined capacity of 1.06 E+09 L (280 Mgal) of cured saltstone. The facility operates under a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE and a permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Since the start of operations in 1990, the SDF has received almost 6.7 E+07 L (18 Mgal) of DSS, resulting in the safe disposal of 2.7 E+16 Bq (7.3 E+05 Ci) of activity. Due to the radioactive decay of short-lived contaminants, the total remaining activity in the disposed waste is estimated to be approximately 1.4 E+16 Bq (3.9 E+05 Ci), as of September 2018. The Disposal Authorization Statement requires a demonstration that the system of engineered and natural features of the disposal facility will limit releases from the facility and be protective of human health and the environment for at least the next 1,000 years. The long-term performance of the facility was evaluated under the requirements of the DoE's Radioactive Waste Management Manual (US DOE Manual 435.1-1). Simulations were performed to demonstrate that the disposal facility would meet performance objectives specified in the manual. The evaluation was based on numerical models that simulate the releases of contaminants from the saltstone waste form. Contaminants were transported through groundwater and air pathways to points of assessment to evaluate compliance. In addition, the potential consequences of an inadvertent human intrusion (IHI) were also evaluated. In accordance with the guidance and recommendations in US DoE's technical standard for DAS, deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to demonstrate the SDF system, which includes the engineered cover system, the SDUs, the waste form, and the natural features of the site, provides a reasonable expectation that saltstone disposal will meet performance objectives. Post-closure doses to future members of the public (MOP) were evaluated; dose estimates from the air pathway were well below the 1.0 E-04 Sv/yr (10 mrem/yr) performance objective within 1,000 years, and the calculated doses to the MOP from all exposure pathways, including the groundwater and air pathways, were well below the 2.5 E-04 Sv/yr (25 mrem/yr) performance objective within 1,000 years. Doses following an assumed intrusion event within the facility boundaries were well below the IHI performance objectives, where the acute IHI dose was below the acute IHI dose performance objective of 5.0 E-03 Sv (500 mrem) and the chronic IHI dose was below the chronic IHI dose performance objective of 1.0 E-03 Sv/yr (100 mrem/yr) within 1,000 years. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

On Temperature Limits for the Outer Surface of a Container in a Disposal Facility - 20313

The temperature in a disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) is an issue for safety. When the recommencement of the search for and selection of a site for a disposal facility for HLRW in Germany was stipulated by the Site Selection Act (StandAG 2017) in 2017, a precautionary temperature limit of 100 deg. C on the outer surface of the containers with high-level radioactive waste in the disposal facility section was set. This precautionary temperature limit shall be applied in preliminary safety analyses provided that the 'maximum physically possible temperatures' in the respective host rocks have not yet been determined due to pending research. Therefore, this issue is addressed and discussed in this paper, contributing to 'pending research' by a review of the literature. This paper briefly discusses a few examples of thermohydraulic, mechanical, chemical and biological processes in a disposal facility, because temperature limits are derived based on safety impacts regarding THMCB-processes. The temperature-dependent processes have been extracted from databases for features, events and processes (FEP-databases). Furthermore, it is discussed if the feasibility to retrieve and recover HLRW is hampered at high temperatures. A design temperature concerning single components of a disposal facility for the preservation of their features can be derived when a safety concept is established. However, the interactions of all relevant processes in a disposal concept must be considered to determine a specific temperature limit for the outer surface of the containers. Therefore, applicable temperature limits may vary for particular safety and disposal concepts in the following host rocks: rock salt, clay stone and crystalline rock. Technical solutions for retrieval and design options for recovery seem to be viable up to temperatures of 200 deg. C with different, sometimes severe, downsides according to expert judgement. Temperature limits regarding the outer surface of the containers can be derived specifically for each safety concept and design of the disposal facility in a host rock. General temperature limits without reference to specific safety concepts or the particular design of the disposal facility may narrow down the possibilities for optimisation of the disposal facility and could adversely affect the site selection process in finding the best suitable site. (authors)

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 OSTI2020

Facility Location Optimization Model for COVID-19 Resources

In response to anticipated resource shortfalls related to the treatment and testing of COVID-19, many communities are planning to build additional facilities to increase capacity. These facilities include field hospitals, testing centers, mobile manufacturing units, and distribution centers. In many cases, these facilities are intended to be temporary and are designed to meet an immediate need. When deciding where to place new facilities many factors need to be considered, including the feasibility of potential locations, existing resource availability, anticipated demand, and accessibility between patients and the new facility. In this project, a facility location optimization model was developed to integrate these key pieces of information to help decision makers identify the best place, or places, to build a facility to meet anticipated resource demands. The facility location optimization model uses the location of existing resources and the anticipated resource demand at each location to minimize the distance a patient must travel to get to the resource they need. The optimization formulation is presented below. The model was designed to operate at the county scale, where patients are grouped per county. This assumption can be modified to integrate other scales or include individual patients.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Safeguards Considerations for Coated Particle Fuel Fabrication Facilities

This study aims to identify where existing fuel fabrication safeguards are limited in application to coated particle fuel fabrication facilities; perform a review of techniques that may be appropriate to address these limitations; and identify where further study is required. The purpose is to ensure the necessary technology and safeguards developments are established to facilitate safeguards-by-design for coated particle fuel fabrication facilities, analogous to the research and development (R&D) efforts in the advanced reactor space, including those requiring coated particle fuels and progress to higher technology readiness levels. Finally, this study will also help meet high priority objectives set forth by the IAEA in establishing safeguards R&D precedence and measurement/procedural standards at emerging fuel fabrication facilities. To achieve these objectives, the report is formatted to (1) distill relevant background information on fuel fabrication of oxide and coated particle fuels; (2) provide an overview of the fuel fabrication techniques for a reference oxide fuel fabrication facility and two selected TRISO fuel fabrication facilities; (3) develop facility models of safeguards approaches for the reference facility and the two TRISO facilities; and (4) identify any observed technology needs or gaps from this analysis.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Report on Year-4 of Water NSTF Matrix Testing: Facility Maintenance and Accident Testing

Under support from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART), a large-scale test facility has been constructed at Argonne National Laboratory to generate NQA-1 qualified validation data for passive decay heat removal systems in advanced reactors. The Natural convection Shutdown heat removal Test Facility (NSTF) reflects key features of a ½ scale, water-based, Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS) and is intended to study the behavior, bound performance, and ultimately guide design decisions for passive decay heat removal systems for advanced reactors. In addition to the experimental activities detailed in this report, a supportive computational modeling effort is on-going which has been demonstrated to significantly strengthen the experimental program while also improving accuracy of the computer models. Together these create a mutually beneficial relationship integral to meeting the overall program objective of examining the heat removal performance of the RCCS concept. This report serves as a summary of maintenance and experimental activities during the program’s fourth year of water-based operation. A planned six-month maintenance period began in August 2021, during which major inspections, repairs, cleaning, and installation of new instrumentation and data acquisition hardware were conducted. Most significantly, two heaters that faulted during Year-3 were repaired, allowing the facility to resume use of the full heated section area and full range of available electric power. The remainder of the year consisted of eight months of test operations, during which the facility logged 211 hours of active heating across one bake-out (following the maintenance period) and seven matrix tests; five classifieds as Accepted per NQA-1, one as Trending, and one as Failed. Testing began by performing two repeat cases to confirm expected facility response and behavior during both single- and two-phase flow conditions, ensuring no changes were introduced during the maintenance period that might have altered the thermal-hydraulic characteristics of the facility. In continuation of the power parametric series initiated in previous years, a high-power test case was then performed examining heat removal performance at a decay heat load equivalent to 2.4 MWt, full-scale, a level exceeding maximum design targets. Additional testing then introduced various blockage scenarios along the network piping, examining the effects of partial and complete blockages of the flow paths on the system behavior and heat removal performance. A study of static boiling tests directed at understanding the geysering two-phase instability was also conducted. The loop was filled only to the bottom of the tank outlet, creating an open loop configuration that prevents any natural circulation flow from occurring, and the heaters were powered on until the facility reached saturation conditions. Following, a series of quasi-steady-state conditions were introduced by adjusting the inventory level in the adiabatic chimney piping at decreasingly lower elevations above the heated region. A strong correlation of geysering characteristics and loop level was observed, with flow and temperature excursions decreasing in intensity, but increasing in frequency, as the fill were reduced to lower elevations along the chimney piping. Once the level fell very low in the chimney, at points near the top of the heated section, the system reached a stable state of continuous boiling without any occurrence of geysering eruptions. A final significant testing accomplishment this year was successful completion of an “accident scenario” test, whose operating conditions were based on a prototypic decay heat curve provided by Framatome and scaled for the NSTF. This test began by establishing steady-state, single-phase “normal operation” conditions, before simulating an accident trip where the availability of active cooling systems was lost. Loop temperatures gradually increased until reaching saturation and subsequent two-phase boiling flow. Over the course of an extended operational period along the defined decay heat curve, steam boil-off caused gradual but continued depletion of liquid inventory until reaching a critically low level causing flow stagnation and cessation of natural circulation heat removal. At this point, after nearly 72 hours of continuous operation, a cold refill was performed to replenish the system inventory and allow the facility to re-establish closed loop natural circulation flow and return to a safe operational state.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Historic Architectural Resource Survey of the Dosimetry Applications Research (DOSAR) Facility in the 7700 Area of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In May 2022, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., completed a historic architectural resource survey of buildings associated with the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The laboratory is one of three Department of Energy facilities located on the Oak Ridge Reservation in Roane and Anderson Counties, Tennessee. The Dosimetry Applications Research Facility is located approximately 2 mi southeast of the main Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus. The survey included Buildings 7709, 7710, and 7712, which date to the 1960s. An additional DOSAR building (Building 7735) dates to the late 1980s and was not surveyed since it is outside the period of significance. The survey was conducted at the request of UT-Battelle, LLC, on behalf of the Department of Energy. As stipulated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Department of Energy is required to identify any properties under its jurisdiction that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In order to identify historic properties at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in 2017–2018 Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., conducted a survey of the main campus as well as outlying facilities, publishing the findings in a 2018 report entitled Oak Ridge National Laboratory Historic Architectural Resource Survey. At the time of the 2017–2018 survey, buildings associated with the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility were not accessible for security reasons and the current report serves as an addendum to the 2018 report. In addition, the current survey incorporates information included in a documentation report on Building 7709 completed in 2019. The properties included in the current survey were also evaluated for their collective potential as a historic district. The identification of archaeological properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is beyond the scope of this report. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., recommends that none of the buildings surveyed for the current report are individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the collective of buildings represents a facility that made notable contributions to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s scientific research endeavors from the 1960s to the 1980s, specifically in the field of Health Physics. The buildings and their associated features have also maintained their integrity of setting, materials, design, location, and association. Therefore, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., proposes the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility Historic District, which is recommended eligible for listing under Criterion A. The three buildings addressed in the current survey (Buildings 7709, 7710, and 7712) are recommended eligible as contributing resources of the historic district. The district boundary is scribed to incorporate the environs of these three facilities, as well as additional relevant features.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

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↗

NASA NTRS1972

Apollo experience report: Real-time auxiliary computing facility development

The Apollo real time auxiliary computing function and facility were an extension of the facility used during the Gemini Program. The facility was expanded to include support of all areas of flight control, and computer programs were developed for mission and mission-simulation support. The scope of the function was expanded to include prime mission support functions in addition to engineering evaluations, and the facility became a mandatory mission support facility. The facility functioned as a full scale mission support activity until after the first manned lunar landing mission. After the Apollo 11 mission, the function and facility gradually reverted to a nonmandatory, offline, on-call operation because the real time program flexibility was increased and verified sufficiently to eliminate the need for redundant computations. The evaluation of the facility and function and recommendations for future programs are discussed in this report.

Allday, C. E.↗