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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 307 records · Page 17

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Findings on subtask 3.3 – applicability of automated brine chemistry determinations for treatment and recovery processes through facility automation/modularization: engineering design study

Under the Energy & Environmental Research Center’s (EERC’s) ~$\$$22 million Phase II Brine Extraction and Storage Test (BEST) Program, a multimillion-dollar brine treatment technology test bed facility was established in western North Dakota to provide a platform for evaluating developing technologies and approaches for brine treatment and volume reduction. The initial facility, and associated research effort, was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with in-kind contributions provided by several industry participants and the state of North Dakota. Since its opening, the Brine Technology Test Facility (BTTF) has supported performance evaluations of desalination technologies capable of treating high-salinity produced water (PW) and enabled data collection for multiple approaches of PW management and critical material recovery. As part of the decommissioning process for the original project, facility ownership and liability were transferred to Select Water, which is providing the EERC with a continuing site access option for state or federal research and/or commercial technology development. This report documents the findings from a design study conducted by the EERC and the engineering firm that was originally contracted to design and construct the facility (Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, LLC [AE2S]) that evaluated the current status of BTTF and its systems and developed a retrofit design to increase the facility’s capabilities through automation and modularization of its PW treatment infrastructure. The proposed retrofit will provide DOE and industry with an expanded range of conditioned PW that can be produced at the facility for evaluating fit-for-purpose water treatment technologies, online instrumentation for brine chemistry determination, and systems that recover critical materials like lithium and magnesium. The current facility consists of an 9600-square-foot facility that includes a 40-foot by 65-foot Class 1, Division 2-rated demonstration area and associated control rooms and lab-ready space capable of sourcing oil and gas PW and wastewater from industrial sources or tailoring brine compositions up to 300,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS) and supplying them at rates up to 25 gpm for extended-duration technology demonstrations. The colocation of the facility with Select Water’s water management facilities allows for access and unloading of more than 10,000 bbl/day of trucked water delivered to site and associated access to on-site Class I and Class II brine disposal wells and nearby hazardous waste landfills operated and/or contracted by Select Water to dispose of concentrate and/or effluents associated with the testing.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

NASA NTRS1991

Nuclear electric propulsion development and qualification facilities

This paper summarizes the findings of a Tri-Agency panel consisting of members from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) that were charged with reviewing the status and availability of facilities to test components and subsystems for megawatt-class nuclear electric propulsion (NEP) systems. The facilities required to support development of NEP are available in NASA centers, DOE laboratories, and industry. However, several key facilities require significant and near-term modification in order to perform the testing required to meet a 2014 launch date. For the higher powered Mars cargo and piloted missions, the priority established for facility preparation is: (1) a thruster developmental testing facility, (2) a thruster lifetime testing facility, (3) a dynamic energy conversion development and demonstration facility, and (4) an advanced reactor testing facility (if required to demonstrate an advanced multiwatt power system). Facilities to support development of the power conditioning and heat rejection subsystems are available in industry, federal laboratories, and universities. In addition to the development facilities, a new preflight qualifications and acceptance testing facility will be required to support the deployment of NEP systems for precursor, cargo, or piloted Mars missions. Because the deployment strategy for NEP involves early demonstration missions, the demonstration of the SP-100 power system is needed by the early 2000's.

Dutt, D. S.↗

NASA NTRS1977

Construction bidding cost of KSC's space shuttle facilities

The bidding cost of the major Space Transportation System facilities constructed under the responsibility of the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) is described and listed. These facilities and Ground Support Equipment (GSE) are necessary for the receiving, assembly, testing, and checkout of the Space Shuttle for launch and landing missions at KSC. The Shuttle launch configuration consists of the Orbiter, the External Tank, and the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB). The reusable Orbiter and SRB's is the major factor in the program that will result in lowering space travel costs. The new facilities are the Landing Facility; Orbiter Processing Facility; Orbiter Approach and Landing Test Facility (Dryden Test Center, California); Orbiter Mating Devices; Sound Suppression Water System; and Emergency Power System for LC-39. Also, a major factor was to use as much Apollo facilities and hardware as possible to reduce the facilities cost. The alterations to existing Apollo facilities are the VAB modifications; Mobile Launcher Platforms; Launch Complex 39 Pads A and B (which includes a new concept - the Rotary Service Structure), which was featured in ENR, 3 Feb. 1977, 'Hinged Space Truss will Support Shuttle Cargo Room'; Launch Control Center mods; External Tank and SRB Processing and Storage; Fluid Test Complex mods; O&C Spacelab mods; Shuttle mods for Parachute Facility; SRB Recovery and Disassembly Facility at Hangar 'AF'; and an interesting GSE item - the SRB Dewatering Nozzle Plug Sets (Remote Controlled Submarine System) used to inspect and acquire for reuse of SRB's.

Brown, Joseph Andrew↗

NASA NTRS2004

Refining the W1 and SE1 Facilities

The Engine Research Building (ERB) houses more than 60 test rigs that study all aspects of engine development. By working with Mary Gibson in the SE1 and W1A Turbine Facilities, I became aware of her responsibilities and better acquainted with the inner workings of the ERB. The SE1 Supersonic/Subsonic Wind Tunnel Facility contains 2 small wind tunnels. The first tunnel uses an atmospheric inlet, while the second uses treated 40-psig air. Both of the tunnels are capable of subsonic and supersonic operation. An auxiliary air supply and exhaust piping providing both test sections with suction, blowing, and crossfire capabilities. The current configuration of SE1 consists of a curved diffuser that studies the blockage along the endwalls. The W1A Low Speed Compressor Facility provides insight for the complex flow phenomena within its 4-stage axial compressor, sand the data obtained from W 1A is used to develop advanced models for fluid dynamic assessment. W1A is based off of a low speed research compressor developed by GE in the 1950's. This compressor has a removable casing treatment under rotor 1, which allows for various tip treatment studies. The increased size and low speed allows instrumentation to be located in the compressor s complex flow paths. Air enters the facility through a filtered roof vent, conditioned for temperature and turbulence, and then passed through the compressor W1A is described as a dynamic facility with many projects taking place simultaneously. This current environment makes it challenging to follow the various affairs that are taking place within the area. During my first 4 weeks at the NASA Glenn Research Center, I have assisted Mary Gibson in multiple tasks such as facility documents, record keeping, maintenance and upgrades. The facility has lube systems for its gearbox and compressor. These systems are critical in the successful operation of the facility. I was assigned the task of creating a facility estimate list, which included the filters and strainers required for the compressor. For my remaining time spent here, we expect to complete a facility parts listing and a virtual project summary so that W1A and SE1 will become ergonomic facilities that will make it easier for people to observe the capabilities and history of the area and the employees that operate. Bolstering our efforts in achieving these goal are the online technical tutorials, software such as Microsoft Excel. Macromedia Flash MX Macromedia Dreamweaver MX, Photoshop 6.0 and the assistance of several NASA employees.

Chambers, Rodney D.↗

DOE OSTI2017

As-Built Characterization and Monitoring System for the RH-LLW Disposal Facility

The performance assessment (PA) for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Remote Handled Low Level Waste (RH LLW) disposal facility (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE]-ID 2012) is required to demonstrate that the facility design will meet the performance objectives established for long term protection of the public and the environment following closure of the facility as outlined in DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” Protectiveness of the facility in terms of the groundwater pathway is a function of the design features that control the hydrologic and geochemical conditions within and below the vault system. The facility design includes features to promote drainage of infiltrating water to limit accumulation of moisture next to the reinforced concrete disposal vaults and containerized waste. The PA groundwater pathway model accounts for a cement impacted geochemical environment within and below the vault system to inhibit corrosion of stainless steel waste containers (i.e., waste liners), steel reinforcement in the concrete vault, and the effects on release and migration of non anionic radionuclides. Upon closure of the facility, an engineered barrier (i.e., cover) will be placed over the facility to reduce infiltration through the waste zone, retarding the release and migration rate of radionuclides beneath the facility. Crediting the long-term performance of the vault system requires characterization of the hydraulic and concrete performance over time. Verification of the vault performance requires monitoring for radiologic releases from the facility. The purpose of this document is to provide the description of the characterization and monitoring system installed at the facility to accomplish these two objectives.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Calculating Methane Emissions from Offshore Facilities Using Bottom-Up Methods

With changing demands in regulation, understanding methane emissions from offshore oil and gas production infrastructure has become increasingly important. Reported emissions from facilities in the Gulf of Mexico range from zero to thousands of tons of methane per hour, but these is currently no clear understanding of how this range compares to expected emissions from normally operating facilities. To generate realistic emission estimates, we create two bottom-up models that simulate emissions from facilities operating in the Gulf of Mexico. We estimate type 1 prototypical facilities (typically unmanned, older, lower-producing platforms in shallow water with little processing equipment, compressors, or storage tanks) to emit an average of 13 kg CH 4 h −1 , which corresponds to a loss of 2.7% of the average facility production. Type 2 prototypical facilities (continuously manned, higher production and operate in deeper water with processing equipment, oil storage tanks, compressors and power generation) emit an average of 88 kg CH 4 h −1 , which corresponds to a loss of 2.5% of production. The average measured emission from type 1 facilities was 18 kg CH 4 h −1 with a median production loss estimated at 8%. The average measured emission from type 2 facilities was 36 kg CH 4 h −1 with a median production loss estimated at 2.4%. Using emission factors that consider the long-tail emission distribution partly reconciles the difference between modelled and measured emission estimates, but we suggest the current the fugitive emission estimate may be an underestimate and more data on the number and size of fugitive emissions could explain differences between the modelled and measured emission estimate. We suggest the bottom-up approach described here that uses production data coupled with facility equipment could be used to identify facilities that have abnormally large measured emissions, caused by methodological failure or larger than expected fugitive emissions, which should be targeted for further evaluation resulting in remeasurement or identification of source type so that a more accurate estimates can be made on the absolute emission.

bottom-up↗

DOE OSTI2017

Resolution of Technical Issues at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Pretreatment Facility - 17281

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Pretreatment (PT) Facility has a number of first-of-a-kind technical challenges that have required additional expert analysis and testing activities to resolve. In 2006, an External Flowsheet Review Team identified 28 technical vulnerabilities with the plant design or future operability. Over a period of three months starting in September 2012, a number of top scientists and engineers conducted a review of the major technical issues associated with the design and operability of the WTP. These experts also provided independent advice on some of the broader challenges associated with completing the Hanford tank waste mission - highlighting the linkage between the physical and chemical properties of the tank waste and the PT Facility technical issues. In 2012 and early 2013, DOE's Office of River Protection (ORP) directed the WTP contractor to suspend production work on the PT Facility until the outstanding technical issues could be resolved and the nuclear safety basis could be updated and brought into alignment with any updates to the facility design and/or process flowsheet. By late 2016, DOE and the WTP contractor resolved three of the eight outstanding technical issues: - (T1) Hydrogen Gas in Vessels; - (T2) Criticality in PT Facility Vessels; - (T3) Hydrogen in Piping and Ancillary Vessels (HPAV). Resolving all three of these issues required a combination of engineering studies and updates to foundational PT Facility safety basis documents to ensure both the design features and safety control strategies were adequately developed and fully supportable. The five remaining unresolved technical issues are Pulse-Jet Mixing (PJM) of Vessels (T4), Erosion and Corrosion in WTP Vessels and Piping (T5), PT Facility Optimization (T6), Black Cell Vessel Structural Integrity (T7), and Facility Ventilation (T8). Specific plans for resolving each of the five remaining technical issues have been developed by the WTP contractor. This paper provides a synopsis of the status of PT Facility technical issue resolution, and how resolution of the issues will enable DOE to make an informed decision to establish a new performance baseline for the PT Facility at a future date. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC, Excess Facility Disposition Program - 17289

Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS), the management and operating contractor for the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Pantex Plant (Pantex) in Amarillo, Texas, has developed an integrated strategy to address badly deteriorating excess facilities presenting risks to people, the environment, and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) mission. The comprehensive, integrated Excess Facilities Disposition Program (EFDP) incorporates NNSA scope for excess facility risk reduction, preparation of facilities to be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) for demolition, and demolition of non-process contaminated facilities. The Program has been developed using the NNSA Office of Safety, Infrastructure, and Operations (NA-50) Program Management Plan as a guide. The Program has undertaken actions to address the most immediate risks associated with CNS excess facilities. At Y-12, new foam roofs have been installed on Buildings 9201-5 (Alpha 5), 9204-4 (Beta 4), and 9206 to minimize further facility degradation. Tanks and dikes outside of Alpha 5 and Beta 4 are also being disconnected, drained, and filled with concrete. In addition, Beta 4 will be getting a new electrical system as its Manhattan Project-era system will be replaced by a temporary 'construction power' setup that will provide as-needed electricity to the building that is safer, more reliable, and will ease demolition activities in the future. The EFDP is also focusing on the basement of Alpha 5 and is planning to remove the water from the aging facility's flooded basement, which in some areas contains up to 54 inches of water. The EFDP is also planning several efforts to remove excess materials from Alpha 5 and Beta 4, de-inventory the Alpha 5 Mercury House System and numerous transformers, and de-inventory Beta 4 hydraulic pumps and systems. Efforts are also underway to deactivate and decommission non-process-contaminated facilities at Y-12 and at Pantex. The EFDP has prioritized the performance of work to reduce risk while at the same time supporting the preparation of process-contaminated Y-12 facilities for transfer to EM. The Program aligns with the EM goal to have the NNSA scope completed in Alpha 5 and Beta 4 by the end of FY 2020, and Building 9206 completed by the end of FY 2024. These dates and project sequencing will support the Y-12-related DOE EM cleanup initiatives. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

A census of fish passage facilities at US hydropower developments across the conterminous United States

Hydropower provides reliable and secure electricity and contributes significantly to the flexibility and stability of the US electricity grid. Hydropower dams generally are aquatic barriers and hazards to migratory fish in rivers. Fish passage facilities mitigate risks from hydropower to migratory fish, but information on these facilities is incomplete for the conterminous United States (CONUS). Here, we present the first CONUS-scale dataset of fish passage facilities at US hydropower developments in over 30 years. The existence of fish passage facilities (presence or absence) was specified for 1909 hydropower features, 390 of which had at least one facility. Most features had a single passage facility that provided passage in only one direction, with downstream being more common than upstream passage. Bypasses and ladders accounted for 60 % of the fish passage facility types. While we documented 659 fish passage facilities across CONUS, facilities were most common in the New England, Pacific Northwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions. In general, fish passage facilities were more common at features that were closer to the ocean, at lower elevations, and at shorter dams, but not related to installed electrical generation capacity. Hydrologic sub-basins containing salmonids also contained the largest number of hydropower features, but the proportion of features with passage was generally higher in sub-basins containing multiple migratory taxa. This census provides valuable information on existing fish passage mitigation and is a benchmark to gauge progress toward a modernized hydropower fleet that provides affordable, reliable energy while protecting fishery resources and river ecosystems.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2020

Policy Considerations When Federating Facilities for Experimental and Observational Data Analysis

Today’s computational, experimental, and observational facilities afford us tremendous opportunities to couple theory and experiment at increasingly large scales. Empirical sensing capabilities are growing dramatically with beam line and detector improvements, and with advances in our ability to deploy large-scale data gathering observations of the natural world. The coupling of computational simulations and analysis to process the data from experimental and observational facilities is giving rise to cross-facility workflows. Such federations of facilities are in fact becoming an explicit requirement for large-scale scientific discovery. As we scale up these pipelines of scientific discovery, each participating facility needs to establish and align policies so that the federation can work seamlessly in an end-to-end manner. This chapter outlines specific policy considerations in enabling the federation of facilities for data analysis. Design choices and vital policy decisions cover the areas of data acquisition and storage, data transfer, computational resource allocation and co-scheduling, seamless federated user access, and cross-cutting governance. By highlighting the explicit and implicit interdependencies between facilities, we aim to provide facility designers and policymakers the information on policy issues to address early in a facility’s operations, thus enabling successful cross-facility federation and improved experimental and observational data analysis outcomes.

Shankar, Mallikarjun (Arjun)↗

DOE OSTI2021

Toward a Seamless Integration of Computing, Experimental, and Observational Science Facilities: A Blueprint to Accelerate Discovery

The Department of Energy, Office of Science operates world-leading facilities for experimental, observational, and computational science. DOE supercomputing facilities will reach performance at the scale of ExaFLOPs in the coming years, enabling new vistas of scale and precision for large scale simulations and data analysis. Experimental scientific facilities are undergoing similar upgrades that will lead to higher data rates and correspondingly larger computational demands, and will increase the need for near-real-time processing and resilient support for more complex workflows. A transformation of science is underway, with workloads at supercomputing facilities increasingly driven by this explosion of data from instruments and experimental facilities, as well as the accelerating use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool for scientific discovery. A seamless integration of computing, networking, instruments, and experimental facilities is required to support these emerging workloads and open up a new frontier of U.S. leadership in scientific discovery. We propose to accomplish this by providing frictionless access to the ASCR supercomputing facilities. We describe our vision of combining the power of ASCR supercomputers and networking infrastructure into an integrated scalable fabric, available to end user scientists via interfaces that aim to automate and simplify access to high performance computing systems. This will enable unprecedented computational science capabilities for experimental and observational facilities, and will create new opportunities to combine large simulations and modeling with experimental facility data analysis. This blueprint for creating an integrated network of computational and experimental facilities will provide an enriched discovery environment and open doors for new scientific communities to access the DOE’s world-leading computing and networking capabilities.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS1986

Orbital transfer vehicle launch operations study: Manpower summary and facility requirements, volume 5

All manpower numbers, number of heads (by skill), serial time and manhours have been accumulated and compiled on a per subtask basis in spreadsheet format for both the ground based and the space based data flows. To aid in identifying the facility resources required to process the Ground Based Orbital Transfer Vehicle (GBOTV) and/or the space based orbital transfer vehicle (SBOTV) through the ground facilities at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), a software application package was developed using a general purpose data base management system known as Data Flex. The facility requirements are used as the basic input to this software application. The resources of the KSC facility that could be used by orbital transfer vehicle program were digitized in the same format used to identify facility requirements. The facility capabilities were digitized in this format for subsequent, automated comparative analyses. Composite facility requirements are compared to each of the baseline facility capabilities and the system generates a relative score that indicates how each facility weighs against the composite requirements in relation to the other facilities in the set.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS1988

Small engine components test facility turbine testing cell

NASA Lewis Research Center has designed and constructed a new state-of-the-art test facility. This facility, called the Small Engine Components Test Facility (SECTF), is used to test gas turbines and compressors at conditions similar to actual engine conditions. The SECTF is comprised of two separate facilities - a turbine test cell and a compressor test cell. The paper will describe the turbine test cell. The capabilities of the facility make it unique - no other facility of its kind is capable of combining its pressure, speed, and temperature ranges. Turbine inlet air ranges up to 9 atm (125 psig). The turbine exhaust pressure ranges from 0.15 atm (2 psia) to atmospheric pressure. Turbine inlet air temperatures range from ambient to 700 K (1260 deg R). The controllable speed of the turbine rotor ranges from 4000 to 60,000 rpm and the maximum power absorbed by the facility dynamometer is 1250 hp. The data acquisition system scans up to 2000 channels/sec. This paper will discuss in detail the capabilities of the facility, overall facility design, instrumentation used in the facility, and the data acquisition system. Actual research data is not discussed.

Nowlin, Brent C.↗

NASA NTRS1988

Small engine components test facility turbine testing cell

Nowlin, Brent C.↗

NASA NTRS1990

Space technology test facilities at the NASA Ames Research Center

The major space research and technology test facilities at the NASA Ames Research Center are divided into five categories: General Purpose, Life Support, Computer-Based Simulation, High Energy, and the Space Exploraton Test Facilities. The paper discusses selected facilities within each of the five categories and discusses some of the major programs in which these facilities have been involved. Special attention is given to the 20-G Man-Rated Centrifuge, the Human Research Facility, the Plant Crop Growth Facility, the Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility, the Arc-Jet Complex and Hypersonic Test Facility, the Infrared Detector and Cryogenic Test Facility, and the Mars Wind Tunnel. Each facility is described along with its objectives, test parameter ranges, and major current programs and applications.

Gross, Anthony R.↗

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↗

NASA NTRS2012

Life-Cycle Assessments of Selected NASA Ground-Based Test Facilities

In the past two years, two separate facility-specific life cycle assessments (LCAs) have been performed as summer student projects. The first project focused on 13 facilities managed by NASA s Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), an organization responsible for large, high-energy ground test facilities that accomplish the nation s most advanced aerospace research. A facility inventory was created for each facility, and the operational-phase carbon footprint and environmental impact were calculated. The largest impacts stemmed from electricity and natural gas used directly at the facility and to generate support processes such as compressed air and steam. However, in specialized facilities that use unique inputs like R-134a, R-14, jet fuels, or nitrogen gas, these sometimes had a considerable effect on the facility s overall environmental impact. The second LCA project was conducted on the NASA Ames Arc Jet Complex and also involved creating a facility inventory and calculating the carbon footprint and environmental impact. In addition, operational alternatives were analyzed for their effectiveness at reducing impact. Overall, the Arc Jet Complex impact is dominated by the natural-gas fired boiler producing steam on-site, but alternatives were provided that could reduce the impact of the boiler operation, some of which are already being implemented. The data and results provided by these LCA projects are beneficial to both the individual facilities and NASA as a whole; the results have already been used in a proposal to reduce carbon footprint at Ames Research Center. To help future life cycle projects, several lessons learned have been recommended as simple and effective infrastructure improvements to NASA, including better utility metering and data recording and standardization of modeling choices and methods. These studies also increased sensitivity to and appreciation for quantifying the impact of NASA s activities.

Sydnor, George Honeycutt↗

DOE OSTI2015

The transportation factor in site evaluations for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal facilities - 15460

New facility siting studies will be necessary to fulfill the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future 2012 recommendation to develop consolidated interim storage (CIS) for spent nuclear fuel in the next decade. Future site evaluations for used nuclear fuel (UNF) storage and disposal facilities must address transportation requirements, especially access to mainline railroads, early in the site selection process. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2013 proposed a strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the BRC recommendations by establishing a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 and a consolidated interim storage facility by 2025. The authors demonstrate that currently available geographic information systems and already adopted siting criteria (defining favorable and unfavorable conditions) allow the identification of the transportation portion of a storage facility siting process to begin without delay. Ready access to the mainline rail system is absolutely critical since existing rail access, or easily constructed access, is a highly favorable condition for successful siting. Despite widespread rail abandonments over the past three decades, vast areas of the United States retain mainline rail service or could connect to existing mainlines by building new rail spurs of less than 25-50 miles. This precondition for transportation planning is critical. Planners need to start with the beginning - availability of rail transportation to and from the interim storage facility/facilities. A second step in transportation screening would be to evaluate those potential site locations within 50 miles of existing mainline railroads using other appropriate variables. This effort could begin with the application of the 1984 repository siting guidelines for transportation (10 CFR 960.5-2-7)[1]. Repository surface facilities have essentially the same transportation requirements as storage facilities. The guidelines in 10 CFR 960 provide a readily available template for evaluating sites based on transportation risks, impacts and costs. Initial site screening, after considering proximity to mainline railroads as the precursory step, should evaluate: 1) proximity to highly populated areas; 2) proximity to interstate highways; 3) proximity to environmentally sensitive areas and lands protected by federal, state, or tribal governments; and 4) proximity to military installations, hazardous materials facilities, or other facilities that might impact transportation safety and security.Several challenges exist which prevent effective transportation planning. The diversity of canister and cask types and SNF characteristics and conditions, the increasingly limited rail access at the shipping sites and the ease with which public attention can be marshalled against a waste management program, all suggest that future efforts need to identify potential storage sites that reduce transportation impacts and costs by reducing near-site transportation construction and reduce total system transportation impacts. This can most easily be accomplished by reducing shipping distances in a process that is easily defined and implemented. The paper concludes that the DOE should develop a site screening and evaluation program with transportation as a central consideration. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗