Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Mission close out review”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

7 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

National Security & International Studies (Q1 FY2021 Newsletter)

Happy New Year to everyone. Activity in the office continues to be at a high pace with the addition of the Strategic Analyses and Assessments (SAA) Office from ALDX, and the Mission Integration (MI) Office (formerly known as Nuclear and Military [NMA] Office) from DDW. We are working closely to optimize the impact of our combined offices. In this issue of our newsletter, we will highlight programs from the SAA Office portfolio, delve into our interactions with the Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI) program from CSIS, introduce you to new staff in NSIS and review a new joint postdoc program with the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and the Center for Global Security Research at LLNL. I also encourage you to take a look at the new NSIS website for more information on the office. Finally, the NSIS office will soon be kicking off a webinar series on starting with topics of interest to the Director’s Strategic Resilience Initiative and will grow beyond that. Stay tuned for more information. --John Scott, Acting Office Director, NSIS

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Idaho National Laboratory Site Natural Resources: Wildland Fire Recovery Framework

As pressures from invasive species, climate change, and anthropogenic impacts increase across the landscape in the western U.S., managing wildland fire recovery to promote healthy sagebrush steppe becomes an increasingly important stewardship responsibility. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has developed and implemented wildland fire recovery plans to hasten desirable vegetation re-establishment on several individual fires, but lacks an overarching wildland fire recovery strategy, or framework. The intent of this document is to develop the technical approach and scientific basis for wildland fire recovery at the INL Site and to evaluate the tools available to support it in a comprehensive and broadly applicable format. This wildland fire recovery framework will outline the process of assessing the potential impacts of wildland fire on natural resources, present a range of post-fire recovery options, outline an approach for post-fire monitoring, and provide a template for post-fire recovery plans designed to addresses the specific conditions of each wildland fire. There are numerous benefits to developing a wildland fire recovery framework for the INL Site. The first is streamlining the development of post-fire recovery plans for individual fires. A second benefit is more closely aligning INL’s post-fire planning processes with those of other federal agencies. The development of an INL Site fire recovery framework will also allow resource professionals to consider a broader set of recovery tools than they have before because all proposed tools included in the framework were vetted through the process of scoping and stakeholder review. Finally, this framework is a publicly available document that can be used as a basis for communicating and discussing post-fire natural resource recovery objectives with agency collaborators, conservation partners, and other stakeholders. Through the proactive land stewardship principles outlined in this framework, current INL sustainability initiatives can be enhanced, and future INL mission flexibility will be maintained.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technical Evaluation of Accelerated Basin De-Inventory Material Addition to Sludge Batch 11 (Rev. 1)

The Accelerated Basin De-inventory (ABD) program involves discarding spent nuclear fuel that is currently stored in L-Basin to the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) for vitrification. The first ABD discards will occur during the preparation of Sludge Batch (SB) 11. Savannah River Mission Completion has requested that the Savannah River National Laboratory assess the technical gaps related to the increased gadolinium poisoning requirement and the impacts of performing the Low Temperature Aluminum Dissolution (LTAD) process in Tank 51 with H-Canyon discards present. The following summarizes the evaluation of the impacts of increasing the quantity of gadolinium (and related topics) from what was previously evaluated in the SRNL studies of gadolinium-poisoned ABD material solubility, the overall ABD flowsheet review, and increasing the fissile mass loading in glass: 1) Based on literature surveys, there is no indication that organic interactions with gadolinium will be significant at the high pH (typically >13) conditions of the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities. Any interactions of gadolinium with organics in DWPF are not expected to adversely impact DWPF or downstream facilities. Thus, there is little-to-no residual risk from organic interactions with gadolinium [Gap closed]; 2) Adding depleted uranium to ABD material, targeting 235 U enrichment of 4.90% within each transfer window, will mitigate potential impacts from an increase in soluble 235 U enrichment during sludge washing and LTAD. The plan to take advantage of previous transfers and allow 235 U enrichment of >5% during the final transfer window carries a risk that Tank 51 supernate will have a 235 U enrichment of >5%, which should be evaluated for acceptance; 3) Increasing the gadolinium mass ratio to 3.0:1 Gd: 235 U(eq SLU ) should lead to the same or higher partitioning of gadolinium into the solid phase within the DWPF Chemical Process Cell, resulting in both liquid and solid phases with expected partitioning of Gd consistent with the prior solubility study [Gap closed for SB11]; 4) There are no expected impacts on DWPF melt temperature and melter operations due to the minimal ~0.2 weight percent (wt%) increase in Gd concentration relative to previous sludge batches [Gap closed for SB11]; 5) As observed previously, Gd is expected to enter the off-gas system via physical entrainment, but at a slightly higher concentration than what was observed for SB9 melter off-gas pluggage deposits (0.07 wt%) [Gap closed for SB11] ; 6) There are no expected impacts on DWPF recycle or the Recycle Collection Tank glycolate destruction process. [Gap closed for SB11]; 7) Gd is projected to be a trace component in the SB11 glass (<0.5 wt%) and can be ignored for process control. Trace components do not significantly impact glass durability, thus the conclusions of the previous Product Consistency Test evaluation at a fissile mass loading of 2,500 g fissile/m3 glass still applies to SB11. The ~0.1 wt% increase in Gd2O3 concentration relative to the previous study will not impact the predictability of SB11 glass with the DWPF Product Composition Control System (PCCS) models for durability or the acceptability of glass according to the Waste Acceptance Product Specifications (WAPS) criterion for product consistency [Gap closed for SB11]; 8) No additional Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure testing is necessary for SB11 and the hazardous waste specification of the SB11 DWPF waste form is unchanged after the addition of the ABD stream [Gap closed for SB11]. The following summarizes the evaluation of the impacts of adding two-thirds of the ABD material to Tank 51 prior to LTAD: 1) The addition of two-thirds of the ABD increases overall aluminum mass from 1.39×10 4 kg to 1.64×10 4 kg (15.5% ABD Al). The form of the insoluble portion of the Al resulting from ABD addition should be the more readily dissolved Al(OH) 3 and amorphous forms. The portion of the ABD aluminum that is processed by LTAD is expected to be completely soluble, thus requiring that less of the boehmite in the sludge be dissolved to reach the same Al target in the SB. [Gap closed for SB11]; The expected LTAD impact on other components, as related primarily to the components in ABD, are discussed. Gd is expected to remain insoluble during LTAD and not impact the solubility of other components. [Gap closed for SB11]; The addition of two-thirds of the ABD increases overall projected SB11 uranium mass from 4,740 kg to 13,100 kg (63% ABD U) and the projected plutonium mass from 86.0 kg to 89.5 kg (3.9% ABD Pu). The addition of all of the ABD increases overall projected SB11 uranium mass from 4,740 kg to 16,100 kg (70% ABD U) and the projected plutonium mass from 86.0 kg to 90.4 kg (5.3% ABD Pu). The 235 U enrichment will be ≤5%. The fissile uranium will be adequately poisoned by Gd and the fissile Pu will be adequately poisoned by Fe from the sludge. [Gap closed for SB11]; There is a low risk that ABD addition will impact the rheology or pumpability of the slurry. There is a low but higher risk of ABD addition prior to LTAD impacting the settling rate; Based on the evaluation of adding two-thirds of the ABD material and all of the ABD material prior to the LTAD process, there is no volume or mass limit that would need to be imposed on ABD additions prior to LTAD. [Gap closed for SB11]. Revision 1 of this report addresses a variation on the ABD additions and LTAD strategy where sodium hydroxide additions for LTAD may be performed intermittently or concurrently with an ABD addition window. The proposed change does not alter the conclusions of this evaluation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

BETO 2021 Peer Review - 3.4.2.302 - Process Scale Up for Production Environments

This project supports the Department of Energy's Bioenergy Technology Office mission of transitioning bioenergy technologies to market by de-risking integration, developing scaling relations and modeling that de-risks scale up, and providing a feedback loop with lower TRL projects to understand process and technology fundamentals. Two objectives were pursued during this merit cycle. First, the Thermal and Catalytic Process Development Unit (TCPDU), a 0.5 ton/day pilot plant, was used to validate kinetic models developed by the Consortium for Computational Physics and Chemistry (CCPC). Validating the models accurately predict product yields and composition is a first step toward de-risking a common industry failure - taking too large of steps between scales. In addition, these models help with design and troubleshooting of new unit operations for the TCPDU. The second objective was to conduct the FY22 verification campaign around ex situ CFP. The primary challenge of this effort was the coordination of multiple national labs and projects. This was overcome by a dedicated leadership role and effective communication strategy between the projects. Currently the project is undergoing a pivot based on a stagegate decision to not conduct the verification campaign in the TCPDU and it is focused on closing out the CFP technology at a smaller scale by the end of the current fiscal year.

BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2025

CSAC observations from 2025 CHEDAR review [Slides]

Overall, the CSAC is impressed by the strong start of CHEDAR, a multi-institutional center with broader scope than its predecessor. The CSAC was impressed and energized by discussions with center students and staff; the enthusiasm for science is universal and the sense of the contribution in context to the NNSA mission is mostly understood. The Center is well positioned to build on a strong start and (1) enhance integration of code-development targeted to, and numerical design in on-going experimental campaigns, (2) focus and better tell the story of the astrophysical connection for on-going experimental campaigns, and (3) expand and deepen ties between Center students (and faculty) and the NNSA National Laboratories. Overall, the CSAC was encouraged and energized by the materials presented. Now, the Center has to recognize the need to continue growing strategically. There is abundant access to experimental facilities – is that a challenge to focused effort? The PIs will need to balance the pace of experimental campaigns and analysis and simulation so that informed progress and focused investigation can develop in each campaign. There was a clear need to connect simulations to the goals of experimental campaigns – what is the best way to cultivate that connection? Are there adequate resources in the near term to develop code capability? What is the balance between close personal mentorship and collaboration across the separate institutions that compose the Center? The CSAC feels confident that the team leading CHEDAR will find creative solution to these challenges.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Savannah River Site Composite Analysis (FY2019 Annual Review)

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a Department of Energy (DOE) site encompassing approximately 310 square miles in South Carolina. It is bounded on the southwest by the Savannah River (SR) and is situated approximately 12 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina, and 15 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia. Construction of and subsequent operations at the SRS began in 1951 under the direction of the Atomic Energy Commission. The primary mission of the SRS was to produce tritium and plutonium for the national nuclear weapons complex. Between 1953 and 1955, SRS brought five reactors and various support facilities into operation in support of its primary mission. Support facilities included two chemical separations plants, a heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility, a tritium extraction facility and waste management facilities. With the declining need for a large nuclear weapons stockpile since the end of the Cold War, many SRS facilities no longer produce or process nuclear materials. All reactors were shut down by 1993. However, the SRS Tritium Extraction Facility continues to supply DOE with tritium. Additionally, operations at the K-Area Complex currently provide interim safe storage for much of DOE’s excess plutonium (Pu) and high enriched uranium, in a building which formerly housed K Reactor. As the SRS mission has changed, many surplus facilities are being dispositioned safely and economically. SRS has completed extensive decommissioning activities in D-Area, M-Area, P-Area, R-Area, and T-Area, with groundwater (GW) remediation ongoing. High-level waste tanks continue to be emptied and closed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗