Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Facility location”

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.

At least 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

LOCOMOTIVES - Comprehensive Impact and Cost Assessment Framework of Carbon Lowering Approaches for the US Rail Freight System

The goal of this project is to develop a tool to aid railroads and other stakeholders assess and approach the decarbonization of freight rail operations by identifying new, viable low-carbon energy storage and conversion systems for future locomotive systems and how they should be deployed on the existing US freight rail network. In the first quarter, the project focused on collecting data, establishing a simulation workflow, and engaging industry through the creation of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB). In the second quarter, the project focused on selecting fuel pathways and powertrain technologies, setting performance targets, conducting a techno-economic analyses, and developing the simulation framework that would serve as the backbone of the future toolhead. The third quarter involved developing an industry-oriented interactive dashboard powered by a five-step sequential framework, as well as holding industry advisory board meetings as per the initial technology-to-market plan. In the remaining project quarters, the NUFRIEND dashboard were fine-tuned with the help of IAB member feedback and in-depth scenario analyses were conducted to support the techno-economic analysis of energy sources. Additionally, dashboard documentation, project insights, and open-source code on GitHub were prepared and released. Throughout the project, the team completed testing and analysis of all model components, integrated all initial test scenarios, and conducted stakeholder engagement. Lower-carbon drop-in fuels can be deployed as admixtures and are considered uniform across the network at a desired penetration rate, while hydrogen and battery-electric technology deployment poses a more complex problem as they require significant investments to be made in the siting of refueling/charging facilities and the replacement of locomotive fleets. Thus, strategies for locating and sizing refueling/charging facilities on a railroad’s network to meet their energy demands were developed to inform deployment decisions. To address this challenge, the Northwestern University Freight Rail Infrastructure & Energy Network Decarbonization (NUFRIEND) framework presents a five-step sequential framework to select O-D paths, locate facilities, reroute flows, size facilities, and evaluate the deployment for alternative energy sources that require locomotive powertrains to be converted and new refueling infrastructure to be deployed. The NUFRIEND Framework is an industry-oriented tool for simulating the deployment of new energy technologies across the US freight rail network. The framework provides a comprehensive network-level optimization and scenario simulation tool for decarbonizing the freight rail sector, addressing the uncertainties surrounding technological developments by supporting sensitivity analyses for different operational and technological parameters through a transparent and flexible input module. It offers practical alternatives to diesel locomotives and can be applied for any railroad considering the specific network structure and freight demand, outputting evaluation metrics for the associated emissions and costs relative to diesel operations. A number of relevant simulation scenarios were run and analyzed for key insights on the value of different alternative technologies for freight rail decarbonization. The project developments and findings have been presented at numerous conferences and events.

08 HYDROGEN↗
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 OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) 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 LAW 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 LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. 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 LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% 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 four LAW 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 operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. 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 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↗
DOE OSTI2025

Investigating Spatial Variability of Aerosol, Cloud Condensation Nuclei, and Ice Nucleating Particles in Mountainous Terrain Field Campaign Report

The U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research (ASR)-supported Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) campaign in the East River Watershed (ERW) of the Upper Colorado River Basin in southwestern Colorado ran from fall 2021 to spring 2023. Two monitoring sites were deployed in the ERW as part of SAIL. The two sites were the Aerosol Observation System (AOS) located on Crested Butte Ski Mountain, and the second ARM Mobile Facility (AMF2), located at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in Gothic, Colorado. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of aerosols in complex, mountainous terrain, Handix Scientific deployed SAIL-Net, a distributed network of six measurement nodes spanning the domain of the SAIL research area from October 2021 to July 2023. Each node measured aerosol particles between 140 nm and 3.4 μm in diameter using a small portable optical particle spectrometer (POPS; Gao et al. 2016), cloud condensation nuclei (CNN) using a miniature CCN counter (CloudPuck), and ice nucleating particles (INP) using the time-resolved aerosol filter sampler (TRAPS; Creamean et al. 2018). Our approach was similar to other studies that aimed to better characterize and understand aerosols and gas-phase pollutants using networks of lower-cost sensors (Caubel et al. 2019, Kelly et al. 2021, Asher et al. 2022). Such studies have identified neighborhood-level variations in pollutant concentrations (Schneider et al. 2017, Popoola et al. 2018, Caubel et al. 2019). Small-scale variations such as this are poorly represented in models and poorly measured by a single monitoring system (Caubel et al. 2019). Previous work has shown the representation error (the ability of measurements to represent a larger area) increases with complex orography, leading to decreases in model accuracy (Schutgens et al. 2017). The overall goal of SAIL-Net was to improve our understanding of the variability of aerosol in the ERW, thus increasing our knowledge of aerosol-cloud interactions in this region and informing the usefulness of distributed networks of measurements for future studies. We met this goal by answering the following science questions: 1. What is the aerosol temporal variability, and how does aerosol inhomogeneity vary seasonally? Is there significant seasonal variability in sources, or are short-term meteorological conditions the most important determining factor in sources for cloud nuclei? 2. What is the aerosol spatial variability? What are the aerosol characteristics at cloud base, presumably the particles most representative of those acting as cloud nuclei? 3. How should measurement networks be designed to capture aerosol-cloud interactions, and what do they need to measure? Can a single measurement site accurately represent aerosol properties in regions of complex terrain? SAIL-Net consisted of six measurement nodes spread across the ERW near Crested Butte, Colorado. The primary objective in site placement was to select locations that captured the vertical variation in aerosol properties while also spanning the domain of the SAIL campaign. The elevation of the sites ranged from roughly 2750 m along the valley floor of the ERW to approximately 3500 m near the top of Crested Butte Mountain, which is one of the taller peaks in the ERW. The farthest distance between sites was 14 km, while the closest two sites were approximately 1 km apart. Two of the sites were collocated with the ARM SAIL sites; our instruments sat on top of one of the trailers at AOS and another one of our sites was located in a meadow just above AMF2.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2017

Free Flight Ground Testing of ADEPT in Advance of the Sounding Rocket One Flight Experiment

The Adaptable Deployable Entry and Placement Technology (ADEPT) project will be conducting the first flight test of ADEPT, titled Sounding Rocket One (SR-1), in just two months. The need for this flight test stems from the fact that ADEPT's supersonic dynamic stability has not yet been characterized. The SR-1 flight test will provide critical data describing the flight mechanics of ADEPT in ballistic flight. These data will feed decision making on future ADEPT mission designs. This presentation will describe the SR-1 scientific data products, possible flight test outcomes, and the implications of those outcomes on future ADEPT development. In addition, this presentation will describe free-flight ground testing performed in advance of the flight test. A subsonic flight dynamics test conducted at the Vertical Spin Tunnel located at NASA Langley Research Center provided subsonic flight dynamics data at high and low altitudes for multiple center of mass (CoM) locations. A ballistic range test at the Hypervelocity Free Flight Aerodynamics Facility (HFFAF) located at NASA Ames Research Center provided supersonic flight dynamics data at low supersonic Mach numbers. Execution and outcomes of these tests will be discussed. Finally, a hypothesized trajectory estimate for the SR-1 flight will be presented.

Smith, B. P.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation (Rev.1)

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of discovering that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stacks. 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 LAW 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 stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. For this analysis, the range of qualified flow rates listed is conservatively based on the average DV through 6 DV for LV-S1, LV-S2, and LV-C2, and 1/3 DV to 3 DV for LV-S3. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the conservative lower and upper qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAW facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the upper qualified stack.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1976

Initial operation of a solar heating and cooling system in a full-scale solar building test facility

The Solar Building Test Facility (SBTF) located at Hampton, Virginia became operational in early summer of 1976. This facility is a joint effort by NASA-Lewis and NASA-Langley to advance the technology for heating and cooling of office buildings with solar energy. Its purposes are to (1) test system components which include high-performing collectors, (2) test performance of complete solar heating and cooling system, (3) investigate component interactions and (4) investigate durability, maintenance and reliability of components. The SBTF consists of a 50,000 square foot office building modified to accept solar heated water for operation of an absorption air conditioner and for the baseboard heating system. A 12,666 square foot solar collector field with a 30,000 gallon storage tank provides the solar heated water. A description of the system and the collectors selected is given here, along with the objectives, test approach, expected system performance and some preliminary results.

Knoll, R. H.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Thermal Modeling and Correlation of the Space Environments Complex Vacuum Chamber and Cryoshroud

From Presentation: Formerly known as the Space Power Facility (SPF) Located at Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, OH -- Houses large-scale test facilities including the Space Simulation Vacuum Chamber -- Largest vacuum chamber in the world -- 100 ft diameter, 122 ft tall -- Cryoshroud operates between -250 °F and +140 °F -- To be used for Orion EM-1 thermal vacuum test -- Thermal Desktop model of vacuum chamber, cryoshroud, mechanical ground support equipment (MGSE) including fluid model of GN2 -- Primary uses: Predict MGSE temperatures; Predict heat load on GN2 system -- Includes 96 TD Temperature Measures that represent test thermocouples -- Steady state correlation with 3 tests: 2 hot; 1 cold -- Two ISTs performed with no MGSE inside the cryoshroud: Insulated test: operated at 170 °F for 37 hours; Uninsulated test: operated at 170 °F for 14 days -- Only cryoshroud thermocouples were installed

Thermal modeling↗
DOE OSTI2023

Risk Analysis of a Hydrogen Generation Facility near a Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are considering flexible plant operations to take advantage of excess thermal and electrical energy. One option for NPPs is to pursue hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis as an alternate revenue stream to remain economically viable. The intent of this study is to investigate the risk of a hydrogen production facility in close proximity to an NPP. A 100 MW, 500 MW, and 1,000 MW facility are evaluated herein. Previous analyses have evaluated preliminary designs of a hydrogen production facility in a conservative manner to determine if it is feasible to co-locate the facility within 1 km of an NPP. This analysis specifically evaluates the risk components of different hydrogen production facility designs, including the likelihood of a leak within the system and the associated consequence to critical NPP targets. This analysis shows that although the likelihood of a leak in an HTEF is not negligible, the consequence to critical NPP targets is not expected to lead to a failure given adequate distance from the plant.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Risk Analysis of a 100 MW Hydrogen Generation Facility near a Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are considering flexible plant operations to take advantage of excess thermal and electrical energy. One option for NPPs is to pursue hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis as an alternate revenue stream to remain economically viable. The intent of this study is to investigate the risk of a 100 MW hydrogen production facility in close proximity to an NPP. Previous analyses have evaluated preliminary designs of a hydrogen production facility in a conservative manner to determine if it is feasible to co-locate the facility within 1 km of an NPP. This analysis specifically evaluates the risk components of a 100 MW hydrogen production facility design, including the likelihood of a leak within the system and the associated consequence to critical NPP targets. This analysis shows that although the likelihood of a leak in an HTEF is not negligible, the consequence to critical NPP targets is not expected to lead to a failure given adequate distance from the plant.

08 HYDROGEN↗
NASA NTRS2010

Feasibility Investigation for a Solar Power Generation Facility

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 states that by fiscal year 2013, at least 7.5% of the energy consumed by the government must be renewable energy. In an effort to help meet this goal, Johnson Space Center (JSC) is considering installing a solar power generation facility. The purpose of this project is to conduct a feasibility investigation for such a facility. Because Kennedy Space Center (KSC) has a solar power generation facility, the first step in this investigation is to learn about KSC's facility and obtain information on how it was constructed. After collecting this information, the following must be determined: the amount of power desired, the size of the facility, potential locations for it, and estimated construction and maintenance costs. Contacts with JSC's energy provider must also be established to determine if a partnership would be agreeable to both parties. Lastly, all of this data must be analyzed to decide whether or not JSC should construct the facility. The results from analyzing the data collected indicate that a 200 kW facility would provide enough energy to meet 1% of JSC's energy demand. This facility would require less than 1 acre of land. In the map below, potential locations are shown in green. The solar power facility is projected to cost $2 M. So far, the information collected indicates that such a facility could be constructed. The next steps in this investigation include contacting JSC's energy provider, CenterPoint Energy, to discuss entering a partnership; developing a life cycle cost analysis to determine payback time; developing more detailed plans; and securing funding.

Nathan, Lakshmi↗
DOE OSTI2020

Key Technical Issues for Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Waste Disposal - 20164

Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste is low-level waste (LLW) that exceeds the Class C concentrations tabulated in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61. Disposal of GTCC waste in the near surface (i.e. upper 30 m of the earth's surface) is prohibited in the United States. Though GTCC waste disposal is generally prohibited, the Commission can approve disposal according to 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) on a case-by-case basis. The waste classification tables, developed in the early 1980's, were based on model projections of dose to an inadvertent intruder in agricultural, construction, and discovery exposure scenarios. The assumptions and parameters used were documented in a series of public reports. Though different disposal facility designs and site conditions were considered, the waste classification tables were based on a disposal facility design located in a specific environment. The tables were based on shallow (i.e., top few meters) trench facility designs and did not consider deeper facilities. To determine the suitability of GTCC waste disposal in the near-surface, site-specific analyses must account for differences between GTCC waste and Class A, B, and C LLW (hereafter, traditional LLW). GTCC waste can have concentrations of radionuclides that are much higher than traditional LLW. Because of these higher concentrations, processes that are typically not significant for traditional LLW may be significant with respect to disposal of GTCC waste. These processes include, but are not limited to, heat generation, criticality, and radiolysis. The form of the waste as well as the barriers to release of the waste (e.g. waste package) could be substantially different than they are for traditional LLW. These barriers need to be considered when assessing the impacts of accidents during receipt and placement and in evaluating long-term performance. Some GTCC radioactivity is either embedded in stainless steel or contained in stainless steel barriers. Stainless steel can have very low corrosion rates under a variety of environmental conditions. Finally, and possibly most importantly, GTCC waste would likely need to be disposed deeper than traditional LLW to reduce the probability of disturbance. The waste classification table values of traditional LLW are based on an inadvertent intruder excavating into the waste and bringing some of the material to the land surface. If waste is deeper than approximately 5 m, the excavation scenario becomes very unlikely. Therefore, other intruder scenarios, such as drilling exposure scenarios, need to be evaluated. This paper summarizes key technical issues for the disposal of GTCC waste. Our previous study shows that certain GTCC waste may be suitable for near surface disposal whereas others may not. This study may support ongoing technical analyses assessing potential disposal of GTCC in a near surface disposal facility. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS1994

Analysis of selected materials flown on interior locations of the Long Duration Exposure Facility

This report documents the post-flight condition of selected hardware taken from interior locations on the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF). This hardware was generally in excellent condition. Outgassing data is presented for heat shrink tubing and fiberglass composite shims. Variation in total mass loss (TML) values for heat shrink tubing were correlated with location. Nylon grommets were evaluated for mechanical integrity; slight embrittlement was observed for flight specimens. Multi-layer insulation blankets, wire bundles, and paints in non-exposed interior locations were all in visibly good condition. Silicon-containing contaminant films were observed on silver-coated hex nuts at the space- and Earth-end interior locations.

Smith, H. A.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Restoration of the Hypersonic Tunnel Facility at NASA Glenn Research Center, Plum Brook Station

The NASA Glenn Research Center's Hypersonic Tunnel Facility (HTF), located at the Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio, is a non-vitiated, free-jet facility, capable of testing large-scale propulsion systems at Mach Numbers from 5 to 7. As a result of a component failure in September of 1996, a restoration project was initiated in mid- 1997 to repair the damage to the facility. Following the 2-1/2 year effort, the HTF has been returned to an operational condition. Significant repairs and operational improvements have been implemented in order to ensure facility reliability and personnel safety. As of January 2000, this unique, state-of-the-art facility was ready for integrated systems testing.

Woodling, Mark A.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Lessons Learned from Demolition of Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant - 20507

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC), a Jacobs owned company, is making significant progress demolishing the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), which has long been known as one of the most hazardous buildings in the DOE Environmental Management Complex (DOE Complex). The facility is located on the Hanford Site and produced plutonium metal during the Cold War. Production was stopped in 1989, the facility was formally shut down in 1996, and material processing was completed in 2004. After approximately 25 years of demolition preparations, open-air demolition of the main portions of the Hazard Category II nuclear facility began in November 2016. To prepare the PFP for demolition, CHPRC employees performed some of the most hazardous work across the DOE Complex. In addition to extensive demolition preparations, including a wide-reaching communication strategy across the Hanford Site, CHPRC implemented robust controls and monitoring during demolition, and when necessary, adjusted demolition practices and sequence to maintain employee safety and project efficiency. Demolition of the main PFP building began in November 2016. The technical complexity, high hazards and radiological concerns have all led to a difficult demolition environment. Following a spread of contamination at the project site beyond the radiological boundaries in December 2017, work was halted and a recovery plan was generated to allow the demolition work to continue. After the implementation of additional controls and concurrence from regulatory agencies and DOE, the demolition was ready to resume work and reinitiated in August 2018. There are a number of lessons learned from the demolition activities and recovery plan process. This paper allows CHPRC and DoE's Richland Operations Office (RL) to share lessons learned and progress to date with other challenging and hazardous projects across the DOE Complex. Understanding the risk acceptance level is critical to execution of any open-air demolition project and is unique to each facility. Four key lessons learned from this project include: 1) plan execution issues, 2) stakeholder communication issues, 3) watching for summit fever and 4) minimizing exposed contaminated surfaces during demolition. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Opportunities for Using the Industrial Assessment Center Database for Industrial Water Use Analysis

The manufacturing sector accounted for approximately 5–6% of total U.S. water use in 2015. Of that amount, 75–80% is self supplied withdrawal from surface-water and groundwater sources and the remainder is from public water supplies. Although manufacturing facilities commonly locate in water-scarce areas, water scarcity still poses a great risk to the manufacturing sector. Reliable water is necessary for any facility that relies on it for process and comfort cooling, cleaning, employee use, and steam generation. One of these barriers to water efficiency is the lack of reliable data on overall U.S. industrial water use—how it is used and the quantities required for each sector. If a facility cannot be easily compared with a facility of similar size and sector, knowing if it is effectively using water conservation best practices is difficult. One potential source of industrial water use data is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)–sponsored Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs). IACs are university-based organizations that provide free audits to small- and medium-sized manufacturing facilities to identify productivity improvement and waste and energy reduction opportunities. The IACs also maintain a database of all the audits conducted, which currently holds more than 19,267 assessments and 145,000 recommendations (as of July 24, 2020). This database also contains energy utility (electricity, natural gas, and other fuels) and water utility data, making it a potential data source for industrial water use. This report attempts to create regression models to predict a small- or medium-sized industrial facility’s annual water use or cost based on its industrial subsector and several possible relevant variables. Using data collected by IAC assessments, models for several industrial subsectors were generated via stepwise regression techniques to determine which variables (annual sales, number of employees, facility/plant area, annual production hours, and a water stress metric) are relevant.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
NASA NTRS2000

45 Km Horizontal Path Optical Link Experiment

Mountain-top to mountain-top optical link experiments have been initiated at JPL, in order to perform a systems level evaluation of optical communications. Progress made so far is reported. ne NASA, JPL developed optical communications demonstrator (OCD) is used to transmit a laser signal from Strawberry Peak (SP), located in the San Bernadino mountains of California. This laser beam is received by a 0.6 m aperture telescope at JPL's Table Mountain Facility (TMF), located in Wrightwood, California. The optical link is bi-directional with the TMF telescope transmitting a continuous 4-wave (cw) 780 run beacon and the OCD sending back a 840 nm, 100 - 500 Mbps pseudo noise (PN) modulated, laser beam. The optical link path is at an average altitude of 2 km above sea level, covers a range of 46.8 km and provides an atmospheric channel equivalent to approx. 4 air masses. Average received power measured at either end fall well within the uncertainties predicted by link analysis. The reduction in normalized intensity variance (sigma(sup 2, sub I)) for the 4-beam beacon, compared to each individual beam, at SP, was from approx. 0.68 to 0.22. With some allowance for intra-beam mis-alignment, this is consistent with incoherent averaging. The sigma(sup2, sub I) measured at TMF approx. 0.43 +/- 0.22 exceeded the expected aperture averaged value of less than 0.1, probably because of beam wander. The focused spot sizes of approx. 162 +/- 6 microns at the TMF Coude and approx. 64 +/- 3 microns on the OCD compare to the predicted size range of 52 - 172 microns and 57 - 93 microns, respectively. This is consistent with 4 - 5 arcsec of atmospheric "seeing". The preliminary evaluation of OCD's fine tracking indicates that the uncompensated tracking error is approx. 3.3 micro rad compared to approx. 1.7 micro rad observed in the laboratory. Fine tracking performance was intermittent, primarily due to beacon fades on the OCD tracking sensor. The best bit error rates observed while tracking worked were 1E-5 to 1E-6.

Biswas, A.↗