SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Sample Results”

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 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

Summary of MCU Flush Sample Results

Starting in May 2021, samples from the Modular Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) were sent to the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) for analysis. Samples resulting from flushes of the Strip Effluent Hold Tank (SEHT) and the Decontaminated Salt Solution Hold Tank (DSSHT) were sent on multiple dates. Over the range of samples, all had less than detectable concentrations of Isopar-L™, and there was an overall decline in 137 Cs activity.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

2019 Annual Sampling - Results Summary Table [Requested documents for Department of Toxic Substance Control]

A table showing sampling results from 2019 is provided.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Soil Sampling Results for Closure of a Portion of Solid Waste Management Unit #16

The U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/ NNSA) and National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS), the management and operating contractor for Sandia National Laboratories/California (SNL/CA), has prepared this soil sampling results report for closure of a portion of Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) #16. The entire network of SNL/CA sanitary sewer lines, including building laterals, was identified as SWMU #16 under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Assessment conducted for SNL/CA in April 1991 (DOE 1992). Along with the previous SWMU #16 investigation results (SNL/CA 2019), the results of this investigation are intended to support closure decisions by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as discussed below. SNL/CA personnel completed upgrading its sanitary sewer discharge network in 2019. These upgrades included installing new sections of underground lines and decommissioning certain sections of the old piping system by capping in place. To date, several sections of the sewer line have been abandoned-in-place by capping as new sewer lines were installed or flow was rerouted to other existing lines. To formally close these abandoned sections of the sewer line, the RWQCB required that SNL/CA personnel collect soil samples to be analyzed for contaminants potentially released from the sewer lines. SNL/CA personnel hired Weiss Associates (Weiss) of Emeryville, California to prepare a sampling and analysis plan, implement the sampling plan and report the results of the investigation under Purchase Order #2166257. The Sampling and Analysis Plan for Partial Closure of Solid Waste Management Unit #16 (SAP) was submitted to the RWQCB on August 14, 2020 by Weiss on behalf of SNL/CA. The RWQCB approved the SAP on September 30, 2020 after Weiss updated the method detection limit and reporting limits for total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and individual aroclors. Soil sampling was conducted in accordance with the SAP except that fewer locations were sampled due to site constraints, as discussed below. This report presents the results of the sampling effort and documents all associated field activities including borehole clearing, soil sample collection, storage and transportation to the analytical laboratories, borehole backfilling and surface restoration, and storage of investigation-derived waste (IDW) for future profiling and disposal by SNL/CA waste management personnel.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Soil Sampling Results for Delineating BH-056 for Partial Closure of Solid Waste Management Unit #16

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Soil Sampling Results for Closure of a Portion of Solid Waste Management Unit #16

This report presents the results of the sampling effort and documents all associated field activities including borehole clearing, soil sample collection, storage and transportation to the analytical laboratories, borehole backfilling and surface restoration, and storage of investigation-derived waste (IDW) for future profiling and disposal by SNL/CA waste management personnel.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Response Letter to RWQCB's Comments on Soil Sampling Results for SWMU #16

The Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Sandia Field Office, and National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS), the management and operating contractor for Sandia National Laboratories, California (SNL/CA), are responding to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) comments dated February 16, 2022 (Enclosure 1) on the report titled Soil Sampling Results for Closure of a Portion of Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) #16 dated January 6, 2022 (Report).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

IAEA PT sample results and analysis [Slides]

Data shows that we need to keep the requirement for matching samples and standards as the set of data from matching standards and samples is qualitatively better with fewer questionable or actionable measurements. Both before and after estimated buoyance corrections.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Solvent Hold Tank Sample Results for MCU-20-32-33-34 (Quarterly Report, September 2020)

In late FY13, MCU implemented the Next Generation Solvent (NGS) flow sheet. Facility personnel added a non-radioactive, NGS “cocktail” containing the new Extractant (MaxCalix) and a new Suppressor (TiDG) to the SHT heel to implement the NGS flow sheet. The resulting “blend” solvent (“NGS blend solvent”) is essentially NGS with residual amounts of calix[4]arene-bis(tert-octylbenzo-crown-6) (BOBCalixC6) and trioctylamine (TOA). For process monitoring, SHT samples are sent to Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to examine solvent composition changes over time. With the exception of Isopar™ L which is regularly added to the SHT due to its high vapor pressure, this report shows the cumulative chemical composition data, including impurities like mercury, of the September 2020 (MCU-20-32-33-34) solvent SHT sample. A summary report of the September SHT solvent sample was issued earlier. This report examines the cumulative results from these and several past monthly reports. These samples are intended to verify that the solvent is within the specified composition range. A baseline “scratch” solvent - a scratch solvent is a preparation of all 6 solvent components (this includes the old extractant BoBCalix and the old suppressor TrioctylAmine that remained when solvent was converted to Next Generation Solvent [NGS]) of the composition that approximates the blend of cocktail and heel solvent - was prepared in the lab (September 2018) and used for comparison and evaluation. The results from the analyses are presented in this document. This report is the last characterization analysis of the SHT solvent. MCU entered a lay-up state and about 128 gallons of the SHT solvent were pumped into 55 gallons drums for future disposal.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Solvent Hold Tank Sample Results for MCU-19-557- 558-559 (July 2019), MCU-19-560-561-562 (August 2019), MCU-19-566-567-568 (September 2019) (Quarterly Report)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Solvent Hold Tank Sample Results for MCU-19-569-571 (December 2019), MCU-20-1-28 (January 2020), and MCU-20-29-30-31 (June 2020) (Quarterly Report)

A trend summary of three Solvent Hold Tank (SHT) monthly samples MCU-19-569-570-571 (December 2019), MCU-20-1-28 (January 2020), and MCU-20-29-30-31 (June 2020) are reported. Most of the conclusions are based on the June 2020 SHT sample (MCU-20-29-30-31). Analyses of the June 2020 SHT sample indicated that the Modifier (Cs-7SB) and the Extractant (MaxCalix) concentrations were above their nominal recommended concentrations (169,000 mg/L and 46,900 mg/L respectively) by 6% and 7% respectively. The Suppressor (N,N’,N”–tris(3,7-dimethyloctyl)guanidine or TiDG) concentration has remained at 833 ± 16 mg/L, but it is above the minimum recommended concentration (479 mg/L). The Semi-Volatile Organic Analysis (SVOA) and FT-HNMR did not detect any organic impurities. Another impurity observed in the samples was mercury. Based on the June 2020 SHT sample, up to 23 ± 5 micrograms of mercury per gram of solvent (or 19 ± 4 mg/L) was detected. The mercury concentration steadily decreased from 34.8 ug/g solvent (or 21.9 mg/L) in the December 2019 SHT sample to 34.8 ug/g solvent (or 19 mg/L) in the June 2020 SHT sample. The gamma concentration (~3.33E4 dpm/mL) measured in the June 2020 SHT samples was consistent with previous values observed when MCU was idle (for example, between February 2017 and August 2017). If additional SHT samples become available, the laboratory will continue to monitor the quality of the solvent for any new impurities or degradation of the solvent components.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Solvent Hold Tank Sample Results for MCU-19-366- 367-368 (April 2019), MCU-19-469-470-471 (May 2019), MCU-19-524-525-526 (June 2019): Quarterly Report

A trend summary of three sets of Solvent Hold Tank (SHT) monthly samples MCU-19-366-367-368 (April), MCU-19-469-470-471 (May), and MCU-19-524-525-526 (June) are reported. Most of the conclusions are based on the June SHT sample (MCU-19-524-525-526). Analyses of the June SHT sample (MCU-19-524- 525-526) indicated that the Modifier (Cs-7SB) and the Extractant (MaxCalix) concentrations were below their nominal recommended concentrations (169,000 mg/L and 46,900 mg/L respectively) by 4% and 2% respectively but consistent with previously observed levels during normal runs. The Suppressor (N,N’,N”– tris(3,7-dimethyloctyl)guanidine or TiDG) concentration has decreased since the March 2019 measurement to 793 mg/L, which is above the minimum recommended concentration (479 mg/L). The Semi-Volatile Organic Analysis (SVOA) did not detect any impurities. However, the Fourier Transform Hydrogen Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (FT-HNMR) analysis detected presence of phthalates at a few ppm. The impurity concentration was highest in the April sample and consistently detected in the May and June samples (but always registered as a few ppm or less). Another impurity observed in the samples was mercury. Based on the June SHT sample, up to 25 ± 5 micrograms of mercury per mL of solvent was detected (as the average of the Direct Mercury Analysis (DMA) and X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) methods). The higher mercury concentration in the solvent (as determined in the last three-monthly samples) is possibly due to the higher mercury concentration in Salt Batches 9 and 10. The gamma concentration (~2.90E4 dpm/mL) measured in the June 2019 SHT samples was consistent with previous values observed when the Modular Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) was operating continuously (for example, between December 2016 and January 2017). Statistical analysis of the different analytical methods detected a bias between the FT-HNMR and the High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) methods when measuring the MaxCalix and Modifier concentrations; the FT-HNMR gave a higher concentration possibly due to peak overlapping in the measured data. A bias was detected when measuring total mercury by the DMA method versus the XRF method with the XRF method reported higher mercury concentrations. The laboratory will continue to monitor the quality of the solvent for any new impurities or degradation of the solvent components.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Measurement Acceptance Region (MAR) Assessment Results Based on Confirmation Sample Sludge Batch 10 Projections

The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) is currently preparing to initiate processing of Sludge Batch 10 (SB10), which is comprised of material from Tanks 11H, 13H, 15H, 26F, 40H (heel only), and Alternate Feed Stock-2 and Sodium Reactor Experiment material from H-Canyon. Frit 473 was recommended for sludge-only (SO) and coupled processing with the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) based on previous assessments of SB10 projections with the DWPF Product Composition Control System (PCCS) glass property models and their associated Measurement Acceptance Region (MAR) constraints. Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC) subsequently pursued Wash Cycle Y to further reduce the total sulfur in the sludge batch and increase processing flexibility at DWPF. In October 2022, SRMC System Planning provided an updated SB10 Tank 40H blend baseline projection based on the Tank 51 confirmation sample results. Due to the reduced Na concentration relative to previous SB10 projections, two additional projections based on the addition of 7,000 gallons of caustic were provided in November 2022.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Summary of Analytical Results from Samples Supporting Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) Batch 3 and Modeling Results for Cs Loading on CST

Savannah River Remediation (SRR) is currently operating the Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) process to remove 137 Cs from tank waste supernate using an ion exchange process. As part of that process, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) receives and analyzes samples in support of the qualification of each batch to be processed. SRNL recently received supernate samples retrieved from Tank 10H as well as in-tank batch contact samples for characterization in support of qualifying Batch 3 for processing through the TCCR unit. Some results from analysis of those samples have been previously reported. This report documents the remaining analyses of the in-tank batch contact samples as well as the results of ZAM (Zheng, Anthony, Miller) isotherm modeling performed for comparison to the measured results. Results of the additional analyses include analysis of the loading of other radionuclides besides 137 Cs on the crystalline silicotitanate (CST) contained within the in-tank batch contact test samples. Results from those analyses revealed the next highest contributor to the activity on the CST was 90 Sr with an average loading of 2.76E+08 dpm/g CST compared to 3.56E+10 dpm/g CST for the 137Cs. Isotopes of plutonium were also detected on the samples. ZAM modeling was performed using the measured composition of the Tank 10H Batch 3 qualification samples. The modeling predicted a maximum Cs loading approximately 2.2x higher than the measured result. This is a slightly lower ratio (expected/measured) compared to what was observed for the prior TCCR in-tank batch contact testing performed for Batches 1A and 2 where the ZAM results were 2.7-2.8x higher than the measured values.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

Generic National Nuclear Forensics Library Implementation

This document provides instructions for the database implementation for national nuclear forensic library (NNFL) using a relational database. While there are many software options that can be used to implement an NNFL database, in this document we reference an Oracle database for the implementation. The principles related here can be applied to any relational database structure. The design revolves around two main types of data: Samples and Results. Samples are materials or descriptions of materials; results are the results of analyses of those samples. All additional tables exist as a result of the normalization process. The remaining tables/entities have keys that are referenced by the Result/Sample tables via foreign key constraints. This allows for the enforcement of different relationships between the tables such as one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-many. This process helps to ensure that valid data is entered, optimizes database performance and avoids data redundancies.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

GADRAS Batch Inject Tool User Guide

Gamma Detector Response and Analysis Software (GADRAS) is used by the radiation detection and emergency response community to perform modeling and spectral analysis for gamma detector systems. Built into GADRAS is the ability to define a detector, geometry, background characteristics and source composition to generate synthetic spectra for drills and exercises (injects). Consequence Management is currently in development of a sample result data simulator tool in which a deposition model is probed for source conditions at moments in time and locations in space. These values are used to generate realistic sample results for use in drills and exercises. In addition to sample results, there is a need to simulate the actual spectra that would be observed in the field by downlooking HPGe instruments given a deposition activity. This way, the FRMAC Gamma Spectroscopist can practice their process of generating quantified results from spectra on realistic data as well. Recognizing the decades of work done in GADRAS to accurately generate synthetic spectra, this team decided to build a link between the new simulator and GADRAS to generate these spectra quickly and easily. The simulator tool will generate a file that specifies the name of the spectra, its location, date/time of measurement, duration of measurement, height off the ground, and the deposition activity and age for every radionuclide in the simulation. Then, a new tool within the Inject Tab of GADRAS was developed to read in this file given a detector selection and generate In-Situ spectra for each row in the file in any file format the user chooses. This way, simulation cell staff can take these files and then upload them to the appropriate data system (RAMS or RadResponder) for use during drills and exercises. An advanced feature of this tool allows for generating any spectra given an appropriate model and mapping of source to model layer in the batch inject tool. This way, spectra from field sample counts, mobile laboratories, or even fixed laboratories can be generated in bulk given an estimate of the radioactivity concentration or total radioactivity in an import file. This expands the capabilities of this tool a great deal and will make it a more useful tool for CM and others to help estimate detector response for nearly any situation. This user guide will explain the steps needed to perform a batch inject file generation.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Exceedance Response Action (ERA) Level 1 Report and ERA Level 2 Action Plan

This report consolidates the requirements for an Exceedance Response Action (ERA) Level 1 and ERA Level 2 Action Plan for pH. A discharger’s baseline status for any given parameter changes to Level 1 status if sampling results indicate a Numeric Action Level (NAL) exceedance for that same parameter. NAL exceedance can be either of the following: (1) Instantaneous maximum NAL exceedance: Occurs when two or more analytical results for any single parameter within a reporting year exceed the instantaneous maximum NAL (for example for pH a value less than 6 or a value greater than 9); and (2) Annual NAL exceedance: Occurs when the average of all the analytical results for a parameter within a reporting year exceeds the annual NAL. A Discharger’s Level 1 status for any given parameter changes to Level 2 status if sampling results indicate a Numeric Action Level (NAL) exceedance for the same parameter while a Discharger is in Level 1.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Summary of Expedited Results from Samples Supporting Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) Batch 3

Savannah River Remediation (SRR) is currently operating the Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) process to remove 137 Cs from tank waste supernate using an ion exchange process. As part of that process, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) receives and analyzes samples in support of the qualification of each batch to be processed. SRNL recently received supernate samples retrieved from Tank 10H as well as in-tank batch contact samples for characterization in support of qualifying Batch 3 for processing through the TCCR unit. SRNL received and characterized a set of dip samples collected from Tank 10H (one surface and one variable depth sample). No solids were observed in either sample and therefore the samples were combined, and a suite of analyses were performed on the composite sample. The density of the combined sample was 1.174 g/mL (0.18 %RSD), which was consistent with the measured sodium concentration of 3.54 M (0.08 %RSD). The 137Cs activity in the sample was 4.75E+07 dpm/mL (4.28 %RSD) and the total Cs concentration was calculated to be 1.54 mg/L (1.16E-05 M). The in-tank batch contact samples consist of 0.1 g of crystalline silicotitanate (CST) contained within a teabag device. Duplicate samples were submerged in Tank 10H supernate for a period of about 13 days, after which time they were retrieved and transferred to SRNL for analysis. At SRNL the CST was rinsed to remove excess salt solution and the CST was then air dried before being digested for analysis. Results of the analysis indicated a 137 Cs loading of 3.66E+10 ± 1.40E+09 dpm/g or 16.5 ± 0.63 Ci/kg CST . This value represents a bounding upper limit as it includes the addition of two sigma uncertainty from replicate analysis of the individual teabag samples as well as the addition of the small amount of 137 Cs activity measured in the rinse solutions. The above values are based on the air-dried mass of CST. Correcting to the true dry mass using a F-factor of 0.8191 results in a maximum loading of 20.2 ± 0.77 Ci/kg CST .

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

Sampling in Long-Screened Wells: Issues, Misconceptions, and Solutions

The issues associated with long-screened wells (LSWs) (and open boreholes) at contaminated sites are well documented in the groundwater literature but are still not fully appreciated in practice. As established in seminal and review papers going back over three decades, the interpretation of sampling results from LSWs is challenging in the presence of vertical hydraulic gradients and borehole flow; furthermore, LSWs allow for vertical redistribution of contamination between aquifer layers. Acknowledgment of these issues has led to the development of new technologies and well designs to enable discrete-zone monitoring (DZM), yet LSWs remain common for many reasons, for example, as multipurpose wells, for geophysical logging, and (or) as legacy installations. Despite the literature on LSWs and despite the adoption of DZM at many sites, the use of LSWs persists and the challenges of interpreting sampling results from LSWs remain. In this issue paper, we provide a conceptual overview of the problems posed by LSWs and review existing literature and past work to improve the interpretation of sampling in LSWs. We draw on experience from previous studies at the Hanford Site in eastern WA, USA, and use synthetic examples to illustrate key concepts and challenges for interpretation. A recently published analytical modeling framework is used to develop illustrative synthetic examples and demonstrate a workflow for building scientific intuition to understand issues around interpreting samples from LSWs, which is critical to effective characterization and groundwater remediation at sites with LSWs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗