OVERCOMING CHALLENGES RELATED TO INTEGRATION OF THE SALT WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY INTO EXISTING LIQUID WASTE FACILITIES AT SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Windham, John↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “FACILITY”
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.
Facility scale in-situ source localization and assay via a sparse 3He neutron detector array: enhancing nuclear material control and accounting in nuclear fuel cycle facilities
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Stockman, Tom James III↗
Research and test facilities for development of technologies and experiments with commercial applications
One of NASA'S agency-wide goals is the commercial development of space. To further this goal NASA is implementing a policy whereby U.S. firms are encouraged to utilize NASA facilities to develop and test concepts having commercial potential. Goddard, in keeping with this policy, will make the facilities and capabilities described in this document available to private entities at a reduced cost and on a noninterference basis with internal NASA programs. Some of these facilities include: (1) the Vibration Test Facility; (2) the Battery Test Facility; (3) the Large Area Pulsed Solar Simulator Facility; (4) the High Voltage Testing Facility; (5) the Magnetic Field Component Test Facility; (6) the Spacecraft Magnetic Test Facility; (7) the High Capacity Centrifuge Facility; (8) the Acoustic Test Facility; (9) the Electromagnetic Interference Test Facility; (10) the Space Simulation Test Facility; (11) the Static/Dynamic Balance Facility; (12) the High Speed Centrifuge Facility; (13) the Optical Thin Film Deposition Facility; (14) the Gold Plating Facility; (15) the Paint Formulation and Application Laboratory; (16) the Propulsion Research Laboratory; (17) the Wallops Range Facility; (18) the Optical Instrument Assembly and Test Facility; (19) the Massively Parallel Processor Facility; (20) the X-Ray Diffraction and Scanning Auger Microscopy/Spectroscopy Laboratory; (21) the Parts Analysis Laboratory; (22) the Radiation Test Facility; (23) the Ainsworth Vacuum Balance Facility; (24) the Metallography Laboratory; (25) the Scanning Electron Microscope Laboratory; (26) the Organic Analysis Laboratory; (27) the Outgassing Test Facility; and (28) the Fatigue, Fracture Mechanics and Mechanical Testing Laboratory.
Source record↗
U.S. Fusion D-Li Neutron Irradiation Facility: Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS) Technology Study
A primary engineering challenge for the realization of fusion energy involves the development of high-performance structural and plasma-facing materials with dimensional stability and resistance to neutron degradation of mechanical properties. The harsh fusion environment, including high levels of helium production and other transmutation products along with high operating temperatures, poses an extreme challenge for materials. Identifying materials that can withstand these conditions is a high priority for fusion energy research. Critical to resolving this gap in scientific understanding is developing a neutron source facility with the ability to mimic the extreme conditions in a fusion reactor. Working with the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the Virtual Laboratory for Technology (VLT) organized a workshop to discuss the need for a Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS). [1] While there are a variety of uses for FPNS neutrons, the main driver of US interest is expanding the scientific understanding of materials degradation in the deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion environment. FPNS will help build the scientific foundation required to enable design of a next step fusion device. Using specifications from previous projects as a guide, key parameters were agreed upon for a near term, moderate cost US facility that would be complementary to the more extensive plans of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). Types of facilities that could potentially meet those criteria were identified. A scoping study for three technologies was initiated to answer three critical questions: 1) Can the concept meet the key parameters, 2) What is the estimated cost, and 3) What is the estimated schedule. One approach selected for the scoping study is a D-Li stripping source similar to the design of the IFMIF but at a lower beam power and atomic displacement rate for cost and schedule reasons. The purpose of this report is to document the results of the D-Li stripping source option study, providing answers to the three questions. The approach to generating a fusion prototypic neutron source using a deuteron beam incident on a flowing lithium target has been studied for more than 40 years. As a result of the research and development recently executed primarily in Europe and Japan, the ability of this approach to meet key parameters (damage parameters, irradiation volume) outlined in the US workshop for a near-term, moderate cost fusion prototypic neutron source facility is not in doubt. The main question that must be answered is the cost of such a facility. As a result, a strong focus was placed on understanding alternatives for developing the facility and their relative costs. The project was broken into four components for the cost estimate: the ion source, accelerator, lithium target system, and conventional facilities. The cost of the accelerator is an important cost driver for the D-Li stripping concept. To fully understand the range of the accelerator cost, multiple alternatives were considered including normal conducting and superconducting linacs and the frequency of the radiofrequency quadrupole. Multiple previous design studies dating from 1989 through 2017 were examined (costs were escalated to 2019 dollars) and compared. After analysis, two options were selected for costing, one superconducting and one room temperature. We found similar project costs for the two accelerator options, on the order of $100M including design and project management but excluding contingency. Including everything except the conventional facilities, the estimate for the neutron source facility is estimated to be $220M without contingency. Additional significant costs for the facility are the conventional costs arising from the need to construct buildings for the accelerator and target facilities, bringing electrical power to the site including a new substation, and removing the heat from the facility using heat exchangers. While ORNL would oversee this work, much of the effort would be executed by contractors. Estimates for this effort was based on similar projects that are currently being executed at ORNL or were executed at ORNL in the recent past. The estimate for conventional facilities for the neutron facility is $173M without contingency, bringing the total project cost to $393M without contingency. With a 50% contingency, the estimated cost is $589M. The estimate range was established using guidance from the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). Specifically, guidance from recommended practice 17R-97 provides insight on the expected accuracy range of estimates based on the degree of project definition and the position of the project in the stage-gate process or maturity timeline. An AACE Class 5 type estimate is appropriate for concept screening. The expected accuracy range includes a low end of -50% to -20% and a high end of +30% to +100% around the estimated cost. For the D-Li stripping neutron source, a -20% to +100% cost range was applied for a recommended cost range of $471M to $1,179M. Less emphasis was placed on determining the project schedule due to the fact that the project costs were large and may eliminate this option from consideration. The development of the accelerator facility may require on the order of five years without contingency. A more realistic schedule with contingency may be seven years. However, this estimate should be scrutinized in a preconceptual design activity if a more realistic estimate is needed. Finally, one lesson learned in this process is that the requirements for a near-term, moderate cost facility drives the alternative selection toward existing facilities and infrastructure. The D-Li stripping neutron source option requires a green field site due to the lack of existing buildings and infrastructure that can be reused for this effort. As a result, the conventional facilities costs are a significant fraction of the total facility cost. Other neutron source options where buildings, electrical power, and cooling infrastructure already exist may be able to meet the requirements for a near term, moderate cost facility.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
The Status of LILW Complex Disposal Facility Construction in Korea-18511
This paper provides the status and experiences of Low and Intermediate-level radioactive Waste (LILW) disposal facility in Korea. The LILW disposal facility is being constructed in Gyeongju-si, Korea. It can dispose of 800,000 drums (hereafter, 'drums' means '200 liter drum equivalents' unless specified otherwise) of radioactive waste in a site of 2,060,000 m{sup 2}. The first stage of the LILW facility construction was completed in June 2014, and approved for use by Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) in December 2014. The first stage of the LILW facility, which is a type of underground silo with disposal capacity of 35,200 m{sup 3} (100,000 drums), consists of a construction tunnel, an operation tunnel, an access shaft, and six silos, etc. Silo for final disposal is located 80∼130 m below sea level, 25 m in diameter and 50 m in height. The capacity of each silo is approximately 16,700 drums. The second stage of the LILW facility is under construction and will be completed by December 2020. The second stage of the LILW facility, which is a type of near-surface disposal with disposal capacity of 32,875 m{sup 3} (125,000 drums), consists of an underground gallery, three movable cranes and twenty vaults, etc. Vault for final disposal is located about 100 m above sea level, 20 m in width, 20 m length and 10.9 m in height. The capacity of each vault is approximately 6,250 drums. A second receipt and storage facility is to be completed by June 2021. This facility is under designing to prepare for further increasing radioactive waste receipt quantities. It has storage capacity of 10,000 drums (existing receipt and storage facility have storage capacity of 7,000 drums)and will be divided into several sections for pre-disposal work, storage, a passage to link the existing facility to the second receipt and storage facility and truck bay, etc. These components of the LILW disposal facilities are together called LILW complex disposal facility. It is the world's first LILW disposal facility with two different types of disposal facilities in one site. For efficient operation, these disposal facilities share a receipt and storage building, a waste water treatment system, a measurement and monitoring system, etc. Once the construction of the first two stages is completed, LILW disposal facilities will be incrementally expanded, and as the whole LILW disposal facilities are completed, all LILW in Korea will be disposed of these disposal facilities efficiently according to its radioactivity level and managed safely by KORAD. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Design, Construction, and Commissioning of the RH LLW Disposal Facility at INL - 19445
The newly-commissioned Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RH LLW) Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) provides permanent disposal capability critical for continuing INL nuclear research and Naval Reactors missions at the Idaho site. The facility mission need [critical decision (CD)- 0] was approved in 2009. Alternative selection (CD-1) was finalized in 2011. The project performance baseline (CD-2/3) was approved and design was initiated in 2014 and construction began in 2015. Construction was completed and transitioned to Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) Operations in 2017. The facility successfully achieved readiness with authorization to begin operations (CD-4) in 2018. The $77 M line-item capital-acquisition project was completed six months ahead of the congressional commitment date and significantly under budget. This paper presents highlights of the RH LLW Disposal Facility project delivery and a summary of facility features and critical characteristics. Highlights include: - As a hazard category II nuclear facility, the project complied with United States Department of Energy (DOE) requirements for incorporation of nuclear safety into facility design and construction as identified in DOE-STD-1189 as well as 10 CFR 835 Subpart K requirements for incorporation of ALARA principles in facility design. - From an environmental compliance perspective, the facility was subject to National Environmental Policy Act requirements resulting in a Finding of No Significant Impact as determined by an Environmental Assessment. An operating disposal authorization statement from the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) authorizing waste disposal operations in accordance with DOE Order 435.1 was obtained. - The project was delivered using a design-build delivery method with a firm-fixed price with incentive fee contracting mechanism. The project was executed as a line-item capital-acquisition project, in full compliance with DOE Order 413.3B under INL's certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) program. - The facility supports twenty years of waste disposal operations with five disposal vault configurations in four vault arrays supporting six different cask/canister system configurations. Three of the six cask/canister systems currently exist and three will be developed to support future operations. There are a total of 446 waste disposal vaults that will accommodate disposal of a total of 939 stainless steel radioactive waste canisters. The facility is designed to accommodate canisters with contact radiation dose rates as high as 600 Sievert/hour (60,000 Rem/hour). - The facility underwent a rigorous readiness review process in accordance with DOE Order 425.1D. Readiness activities included rigorous facility testing and shakedown activities, a management-self assessment, a contractor operational readiness review, and a DOE operational readiness review. Readiness was demonstrated for an existing cask/canister system (the MFC HFEF-5 cask). Separate readiness activities will be conducted for each cask/canister system as they are brought online for facility operations. INL's successful delivery of the project has provided waste disposal capability to ensure long-term viability of planned and current facilities and missions associated with both INL and the Naval Reactors Facility. Successful execution of the project has proven to be strategically important to future capital investments in capabilities necessary to advance INL's mission. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility
The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the intern’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight mid deck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned for dual-use medical scrub and galley handwash facility. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.
Habitat↗
Configuration and Projected Capabilities of the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility
The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage Liquid Oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. Additional work outside the scope of this paper is developing a vertical translation system, a crew mobility aids system based on wearable gecko-derived grippers, and a crew seating/restraint system. These systems are all assumed for use in conjunction with the Medical Care Facility, which is needed to maintain crew well-being during these missions, where distance from Earth precludes the possibility of evacuation to Earth. This paper describes recent improvements in the Common Habitat Medical Care Facility and associated benefits for crew survivability in long duration missions beyond Earth orbit. These improvements were made with the assistance of a NASA Pathways intern whose experience includes a tour of duty in Afghanistan as an Army combat medic with the 691st GHOST-T, attached to the 1st and 7th US Special Forces Groups as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, where he helped provide far-forward surgical capabilities in austere combat environments. The initial baseline Medical Care Facility was developed working in conjunction with University of Houston Space Architecture graduate students. The facility was placed on the upper deck of the Common Habitat in a location that provided privacy, operational volume, and was close to the vertical translation pathway. The notional outfitting repurposed component CAD models from unrelated studies and notionally indicated a level of care roughly equivalent to that aboard the International Space Station. The CAD modeling provided notional stowage volumes, a deployable surface, some fixed equipment, an ultrasound, and a potentially reconfigurable treatment table. While this facility is clearly a competent arrangement, it was desired to leverage available expertise and upgrade the station given the vast distances from Earth to be experienced by the Common Habitat. Key driving requirements applied to the upgrade included to provide NASA’s Medical Level of Care V, offer enhanced telemedicine capabilities, provide patient physical accommodation, provide caregiver access to the patient from all sides, include sliding pocket doors for access to hygiene and to the Vertical Translation System, and to add any additional capability possible for the best achievable medical care. The first step in the facility upgrade was to quantify the current medical inventory on the International Space Station and ensure that sufficient stowage volume was present for this purpose. To that end, the ISS medical kits were reviewed, and eight full size mid deck lockers were placed in the facility. A number of additional devices were also added, based on the co-author’s combat medic experience. Also, two fixed shelves and one horizontal work surface were added to the Medical Care Facility, with the shelves providing storage space for the additional devices and the work surface providing a location for the caregiver to work or stage equipment. Four display monitors were added to the wall above the horizontal work surface, supporting data display, telemedicine, conferencing, or other needs. The existing treatment table was replaced with a mobile surgical stretcher-chair. Two additional doors were added to the Medical Care Facility. One leads directly to the hygiene compartment, allowing it to support medical operations in addition to providing galley/wardroom support. The other door leads directly into the Vertical Translation System. The wall adjacent to the subsystems bay was moved, adding additional volume to the Medical Care Facility. This improved caregiver access to the patient and allowed for a larger number of caregivers to be present. It also provided options for relocation of support equipment relative to the patient as needed. In the upgraded Medical Care Facility, the Surgical Stretcher-Chair and the Vertical Translation System can work together to provide incapacitated crew member transport from a site of injury on any deck of the Common Habitat to the Medical Care Facility. It can also support patient treatment in a variety of positions including a variety of sitting postures and a supine posture at a variety of pitch angles. The facility can also support caregiver office work for review of examination results, private consultation, inventory and maintenance, and a variety of other purposes. A forward activity will be to conduct evaluations of the Medical Care Facility with different medical scenarios. Additionally, ambient and task lighting selections remain as forward work. The eight middeck lockers can be augmented to use as portable equipment carts, similar to a manner in which maintenance facility stowage was used as portable carts during the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies in the Constellation Program. Trash accommodation will also need forward work to assess, including provision for wet trash, dry trash, and biological waste. It will be important to assess a redesign of the surgical stretcher-chair. The commercial version used in the upgrade can only enable vertical translation in the seated configuration, requiring the patient to bend both hips and knees. A possible redesign of the chair will allow for vertical translation without requiring any bending at the hip or knees. Also, the commercial version is wheeled, making it mobile in gravity but unanchored in microgravity. Work will be needed to adapt the chair for gravity-independent performance. The hygiene compartment can be redesigned to serve both as a medical scrub facility and for galley hand washing. Pending sufficient volume, it may also be possible to place sanitation equipment in this location to clean medical tools. Finally, most space architectures have never allowed for more than one incapacitated crew member, but several scenarios could potentially injure two or more crew in the same incident. This facility could be assessed to determine its present ability to address two or more injured crew in parallel and determine the potential upper limit for number of treatable crew in a multi-crew injury scenario, or to treat polytrauma of a single patient.
Common Habitat↗
The Status of LILW Complex Disposal Facility Construction in Korea - 17123
In this paper, the experiences and directions of the construction of the LILW disposal facility in Korea are discussed. The LILW disposal facility is being constructed in Gyeongju-si, Korea. The disposal facility is officially called 'Wolsong Low and Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Center (WLDC)'. It can dispose of 800,000 drums (hereafter, 'drums' means '200 liter drum equivalents' unless specified otherwise) of radioactive waste in a site of 2,060,000 m{sup 2}. The first stage of the LILW facility construction was completed in June 2014, and approved for use by Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC) in December 2014. The first stage of the LILW facility is a type of underground silo with disposal capacity of 35,200 m{sup 3} (100,000 drums). The first stage of the LILW facility consists of a construction tunnel, an operation tunnel, an access shaft and six silos, etc. Silo for final disposal is located 80∼130 m below sea level, 25 m in diameter and 50 m in height. The capacity of each silo is approximately 16,700 drums. The second stage of the LILW facility is under construction to be completed by December 2019. Site construction is currently underway. The second stage of the LILW facility is a type of near-surface disposal with disposal capacity of 32,875 m{sup 3} (125,000 drums). This stage of the LILW disposal facility consists of an underground gallery, three movable cranes and twenty vaults, etc. Vault for final disposal is located 70 m above sea level, 20 m in width, 20 m length and 10 m in height. The capacity of each vault is approximately 6,250 drums. These stages of the LILW disposal facilities are together called LILW complex disposal facility. It's the world's first LILW disposal facility with two different types of disposal facilities in one site. For efficient operation, these disposal facilities share a reception and storage building, waste water treatment system, measurement and monitoring system, etc. After construction of the first two stages is completed, LILW disposal facilities will be incrementally expanded, and as the whole LILW disposal facilities are completed, all LILW in Korea will be managed safely in WLDC. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Performance Assessment Results for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility - 19134
In 2014, the US DOE Office of River Protection and its contractors began to develop a performance assessment for the near-surface disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste at the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility. The Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility is a doubly-lined landfill that was constructed between 2004 and 2006 to be the disposal facility for the vitrified low-activity waste containers that will be produced at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant. The disposal facility is also expected to receive solid secondary waste produced at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant and other solid wastes from site activities. The constructed facility is awaiting authorization to receive waste. Although no waste destined for the facility is currently being generated, operations cannot begin until the facility has received a Disposal Authorization Statement from US DOE and a permit modification from the State of Washington Department of Ecology. Both the Disposal Authorization Statement and permit modification require 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 the next 1,000 to 10,000 years. Based on the analyses presented in the Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, US DOE issued a conditional Disposal Authorization Statement for the facility in June 2018. Demonstrating the long-term performance of the facility to be protective of human health and the environment was evaluated under the requirements of US DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Computer simulations were performed to evaluate whether or not the disposal facility would comply with the performance objectives specified in the order. The evaluation was performed using numerical models to simulate source term releases from vitrified and cement-based waste forms. Source term releases were subsequently transported through an air pathway and a groundwater pathway to a point of compliance 100 meters from the disposed of waste. In addition, an analysis evaluating the consequences of an inadvertent intrusion into the waste was also performed. In accordance with US DoE's technical standard for performance assessments, deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to demonstrate that the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility, together with the engineered features of the waste forms and natural features of the selected site, provides a reasonable expectation that the low-level waste and mixed low-level waste disposal will meet the radiological performance objectives established by US DOE. Post-closure doses to future members of the public were evaluated after the time of closure and included a 100-year period of institutional controls that limited exposure immediately following closure of the facility. Calculated doses to a future member of the public from the air pathway were below the 100 μSv/yr dose performance objective. Calculated doses to a future member of the public from all exposure pathways, including the air pathway and the groundwater pathway, were below the 250 μSv/yr dose performance objective. Doses following an inadvertent intrusion into the facility after the institutional control period were below the 5 mSv acute dose performance measure and the 1 mSv/yr chronic dose performance measure. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Expedited Walkdowns and Preparation of Cost Estimates for Decontamination and Demolition of Excess Facilities - 20335
Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) is the prime contractor responsible for managing and operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The mission of the LLNL is to strengthen security of the United States through development and application of world-class science and technology to enhance the nation's defense, reduce the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and respond with vision, quality, integrity, and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance. To accomplish its mission, LLNL must plan and manage its campus space and facilities to optimize use of its relatively small one-square-mile footprint. LLNL currently has numerous excess facilities that require decontamination and demolition (D and D). The LLNL Legacy Facility Program is responsible for stewardship and risk reduction programs to effectively manage these excess assets at LLNL. The Legacy Facility Program identified 10 excess facilities at LLNL that were candidates for demolition based on risks from further degradation of the facilities, potential exposure to hazardous materials, or need for removal to make way for new program facilities. The buildings range from a structure built in 1943 to serve as a US Navy drill hall during World War II, to a facility that provided neutrons to study material properties for the fusion energy program. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) appropriated FY19 funding for the development of Class 3 estimates for these 10 excess facilities that would be used to develop a Program Management Plan for funding consideration. Class 3 estimates are not conceptual, nor overly detailed, but adequate to be used for budget and appropriation purposes. Using existing strategic sourcing agreements, LLNL was able to organize a team of senior subject matter experts (SMEs) with diverse technical backgrounds across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex to complete extensive process knowledge (PK) reviews and walk-downs of each excess facility and to deliver accurate and complete estimates under an expedited schedule (i.e., within eight weeks). To facilitate the expedited schedule, LLNL was fully prepared for the arrival of the JGMS team, which consisted of the following companies: J.G. Management Systems, Inc. (JGMS); Strata-G, LLC; and Michael Baker International. LLNL provided background and PK information on the excess facilities, pictures, supporting historical documentation, and radiological survey history as well as escorted access to the facilities. The JGMS team has previous experience supporting Program Management Plans for excess facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The team mobilized to LLNL and performed the facility walk-downs from January 22-25, 2019. Using a methodical evaluation process, expertise, and experience, the team was able to deliver walk-down draft reports and estimates to LLNL before their February 8, 2019 deadline. LLNL then in turn reviewed, completed the estimates by adding waste management costs and other LLNL costs, and delivered the estimates to NNSA by February 15, 2019. The completed final reports, including draft D and D estimates, were delivered to LLNL before their March 6, 2019 deadline. The work was successfully completed ahead of the expedited schedule required by LLNL, resulting in a commendation from the client. This paper describes how the partnership and collaboration as a fully integrated team comprised of the prime contractor, LLNS, and the JGMS team successfully met the needs of the US government, resulting in the performance of expedited site walk-downs, the development of summary evaluation reports, and the preparation of draft Class 3 estimates and preliminary schedules for the D and D of 10 excess facilities at LLNL. The efforts of the team will enable the D and D of the first excess facility in the 2020-2021 time frame. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Facilities maintenance handbook
This handbook is a guide for facilities maintenance managers. Its objective is to set minimum facilities maintenance standards. It also provides recommendations on how to meet the standards to ensure that NASA maintains its facilities in a manner that protects and preserves its investment in the facilities in a cost-effective manner while safely and efficiently performing its mission. This handbook implements NMI 8831.1, which states NASA facilities maintenance policy and assigns organizational responsibilities for the management of facilities maintenance activities on all properties under NASA jurisdiction. It is a reference for facilities maintenance managers, not a step-by-step procedural manual. Because of the differences in NASA Field Installation organizations, this handbook does not assume or recommend a typical facilities maintenance organization. Instead, it uses a systems approach to describe the functions that should be included in any facilities maintenance management system, regardless of its organizational structure. For documents referenced in the handbook, the most recent version of the documents is applicable. This handbook is divided into three parts: Part 1 specifies common definitions and facilities maintenance requirements and amplifies the policy requirements contained in NMI 8831. 1; Part 2 provides guidance on how to meet the requirements of Part 1, containing recommendations only; Part 3 contains general facilities maintenance information. One objective of this handbook is to fix commonality of facilities maintenance definitions among the Centers. This will permit the application of uniform measures of facilities conditions, of the relationship between current replacement value and maintenance resources required, and of the backlog of deferred facilities maintenance. The utilization of facilities maintenance system functions will allow the Centers to quantitatively define maintenance objectives in common terms, prepare work plans, and develop management information in order to statistically identify and analyze variances from those plans. It will also add credibility to the NASA facilities maintenance budgeting process. The key to a successful maintenance program is the understanding and support of the senior Center managers.
Source record↗
Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1
Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The Mach Number distribution shows small yet distinct differences between the two cases such as locations of shocks/shock reflections and a slightly different impingement point on the wall of the diffuser from the expansion at the exit of the nozzle. Similarly the temperature distribution indicates different flow recirculation patterns in the test cell. Both cases capture all the essential flow phenomena such as the shock-boundary layer interaction, plume expansion, expansion of the first stage ejectors, mixing between the engine plume and the first stage ejector flow and pressurization due to the first stage ejectors. The final paper will discuss thermal loads on the walls of the diffuser and cooling mechanisms investigated.
Allgood, Daniel C.↗
Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility: Steady Predictions - Part 1
Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Ma Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
Allgood, Daniel C.↗
Results of Modeling and Simulation Support to Specia Nuclear Material Handling Facility Operations - 16053
Newport News Shipbuilding (NNS) is the sole designer and provider of nuclear powered aircraft carriers and one of only two companies in the United States to build nuclear powered submarines. As part of the upkeep of aircraft carriers, the ships return to NNS once in their lifetime for a complex overhaul and to be refueled. In support of overhaul operations NNS maintains a state of the art Special Nuclear Material (SNM) handling facility. Due to the complex nature of the operations that occur within this facility, during the design and initial operation of the building NNS developed a facility simulation model to provide decision support during the project planning and operational phases. This tool allows users to experiment with process times, process order, equipment utilization, personnel utilization and spatial utilization. By capturing the planned operations, time distributions for operations, equipment sizes and uses and personnel requirements, the tool accurately reflects the planned use of the facility. This realism allows the user to experiment with any aspect of the facility, in a controlled and cost effective space, and determine how changes or potential delays may impact overall facility operations. Thus the model allows for rapid exploration of multiple scenarios to determine likely outcomes, allowing a user to identify risks well ahead of their realization and explore mitigation strategies in a controlled space, to determine the ideal path forward. The tool was successful during the initial operation of the facility in helping to identify and mitigate risks related to the complex operations occurring during SNM handling. The tool is now in use to support planning for the next series of operations that will occur within the facility. The initial operations the model supported occurred during the deactivation of the USS Enterprise, and future operation will focus on the overhaul of Nimitz class aircraft carriers. The NNS planning team is currently using the tool to assess potential risks and challenges that are identified as potentially impacting the schedule and timelines for these overhaul processes. In addition, the NNS development team is working to add new operational steps to the model, capturing work that is occurring near the facility, but which directly impacts the facilities operational abilities. In conjuncture with the engineering planning division, the NNS development team has run over 20 complex scenarios through the tool. The team has provided output from these scenarios to both NNS personnel and government representatives. To date the model has successfully supported the identification of several feasible paths to incorporate new processes, dictated by the work to support a overhaul vs a deactivation. The model also provides a spatial arrangement component that allows users to experiment with different equipment placement within the facility. Due to the fidelity of the model, arranging equipment with the spatial component allows a user to set up the facility in an experimental layout and run the processes inside the facility to determine if the layout will be feasible, or if it would impact operational capabilities. Additionally, the spatial component allows for visual collaboration between stakeholders to ensure all operational personnel are aware of the current and planned layout, and that they do not locate equipment or work stations in locations that would interfere with facility operations. The spatial component, in combination with the simulation component, has resulted in several documented improvements in process. These include: the identification of additional equipment which could be stored outside the facility, without impacting operations, to increase space; confirmation of the ideal placement of a large water tank; and identification of several risks related to planned equipment storage area, allowing the team to develop new plans and avoid realizing the risk. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Addressing Excess Contaminated Facilities and Mercury Cleanup At the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Reservation - 18408
The U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) and its prime cleanup contractor, URS | CH2M Oak Ridge LLC (UCOR) are executing an aggressive program of cleanup and risk reduction in excess contaminated facilities on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Across the complex, DOE has designated more than 2,300 of its facilities 'excess'. Excess means 'nonoperational' and refers to a facility for which DOE no longer has a mission need. Many of these facilities pose high risk to workers and/or the environment. Delayed cleanup increases risk as well as cost. OREM and UCOR initiated a Working Group on Excess Facilities to identify and prioritize activities that are needed to enhance worker safety, minimize further degradation of the facilities, and reduce the environmental risk. Six Excess Contaminated Facilities projects on the ORR were identified as priorities. Three of the projects are located at ORNL - the Building 7500 Homogenous Reactor Experiment, the Building 3026 Radioisotope Development Laboratory and Buildings 3028/3029 Isotope Facilities. At Y-12, priority excess facilities include the Column Exchange Equipment (COLEX), the Alpha-4 Lithium Enrichment Facility and the Biology Complex Research Facilities. Work on these projects is aimed at stabilization of degraded higher risk facilities, characterization of conditions and hazards, removal of hazardous materials and placement of the facility in the lowest risk condition possible pending demolition. At the same time, DOE and UCOR are preparing to undertake a comprehensive program to remediate the presence of mercury in the water stemming from historical operations at the Y-12 National Security Complex. Over decades of operations, mercury migrated into the environment. Deteriorating conditions of large post-operation mercury-use buildings may be contributing to additional releases. Mercury cleanup is a high priority for Y-12 and the Oak Ridge Reservation. UCOR is completing the final design on a new Mercury Treatment Facility with construction expected to begin in late 2017. When constructed the treatment facility will reduce the amount of mercury in local waters, lower environmental contamination levels and serve as a guard against future releases. (author)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Development of the Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Idaho National Laboratory Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility - 19143
The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RH LLW) Disposal Facility has been constructed, has received operational approval from the Department of Energy (DOE), and is expected to receive its first waste shipment in FY 2019. The RH LLW Disposal Facility will support the needs of INL and the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF). RH LLW destined for the facility includes waste currently in storage from previous programs and projects conducted at INL; newly generated waste from programs and projects conducted at INL; and waste from NRF spent fuel processing activities. This new facility supports RH LLW disposal needs for the ongoing mission of INL and NRF. Waste to be disposed of at the RH LLW Disposal Facility may exhibit dose rates that range from 0.002 Sv/hr to 600 Sv/hr. Waste types include resins and activated metals as well as surface-contaminated debris generated from existing and new missions. The total number of canisters currently planned for disposal at the RH LLW Disposal Facility is 939 with the possibility of future expansion. The projected waste volume to be disposed of is 3,100 m{sup 3}. The RH LLW Disposal Facility will receive a wide variety of RH LLW and is in preparations to receive its first canisters in FY 2019. Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) and the radioactive waste management basis have been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable DOE Order. In order to ensure that DOE requirements and guidance were appropriately implemented in the RH LLW Disposal Facility WAC, the project worked closely with the DOE Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) representatives and followed the applicable DOE standard. This paper provides an overview of the development of the WAC, including waste and waste generator certification requirements, for the RH LLW Disposal Facility. The paper illustrates the importance of maintaining strong ties to the development and revision of the RH LLW Disposal Facility Performance Assessment (PA), Documented Safety Analysis, Facility Procedures, Readiness Reviews, DOE Order, and applicable Technical Standards. The paper also provides an overview of the RH LLW Disposal Facility, WAC generator certification requirements, distinctive challenges to acceptance of legacy waste, and the unique approach the RH LLW Disposal Facility has taken to ensure compliance with PA driven limits. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
The use of underground research facilities for the demonstration of safety of geological disposal - 15094
Many countries are progressing towards developing research programmes related to the development of geological disposal facilities and as part of these research programmes many countries have constructed or are planning to construct Underground Research Facilities (URFs). The development of the safety case for geological disposal facilities, which covers both the operational phase and the post-closure phase, is built on the acquisition and integration of all necessary data including data on the natural and engineered barriers, on the facility itself (design), on the operation of the disposal facility, and in the specific case of geological disposal facilities, the conditions at the depth of disposal relevant for both in-situ and waste emplacement states. Taking these conditions into account can make the demonstration of safety more complex and demanding than for near surface disposal facilities. Most if not all of the countries well advanced in the development of geological disposal facilities have also developed underground research facilities to support the decision processes within their disposal facility development programme. Underground Research Facilities play an essential role in the demonstration of safety of geological disposal facilities and a distinction has to be made between data acquired from surface based investigations and boreholes and those data and experiments carried out in-situ. The use of in-situ data contribute to build confidence in the demonstration of safety and contribute to public confidence and acceptance of geological disposal facilities. Further discussion will elaborate on whether to use the URF as part of a future disposal facility or not, with an emphasis on the transposition of data from the experimental site to the disposal site and how this is addressed and validated in the demonstration of safety. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗