Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics at LLNL
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Astronomy and AstroPhysics↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “LLNL”
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.
LLNL Presentation TMAP8
Presentation to send to a working group of IFE researchers about MOOSE tools and capabilities
70 - PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
Optical Diagnostics Deployment in the LLNL Energy Matter Interaction Tunnel (EMIT)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Engineering - Aeronautics↗
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↗
The Quantum Nature and Mass of the Neutrino. FY20 Annual Laboratory Continuation Progress Report
Over the last 100 years we have learned a much about the neutrino, but there remain interesting questions about this weakly interacting particle. In particular, at LLNL we are developing experiments to measure the mass and the quantum nature of the neutrino. The 2015 long range plan recommended tonne-scale neutrinoless double beta decay experiments as the top new project priority and this experiment will target the quantum nature of the neutrino. The LLNL team is motivated and focused on developing the best technology for this experiment which is a liquid xenon time project chamber called nEXO. On a longer time scale, LLNL is also developing technology to measure the neutrino mass with tritium decay experiments. Work on nEXO at LLNL started in 2015 with an LDRD and program development funds to develop the nEXO concept, publish sensitivity predictions, explore alternatives and risks, and to build a credible project team and this effort is on going. In addition, we received research funding from DOE-SC NP and LLNL manages pre-conceptual R&D for the nEXO collaboration a portion of which is executed at LLNL. The Project 8 effort is solely funded by LLNL LDRD, and ends this year. A second LDRD effort is focused on repurposing cyclotron radiation emission spectroscopy for eV-scale X-ray detection. This second effort, while separated from Project 8, still has scientific and technical commonalities with Project 8. The funding for this X-ray detection effort will continue for one more year. LLNL has a long history of building large projects, science projects and time projection chambers, but nEXO is in fact the first project of this scale that LLNL is prepared to lead for DOE-SC NP.We have the tools, skills, people and motivation to make nEXO a reality. The current program development dollars are used to prepare the nEXO concept for down select and CD1. These internal LLNL dollars pay for a number of things including project staff to organize the nEXO collaboration for the various reviews that lie ahead, to develop the draft plans and structure to manage the project as well as setting up an external advisory committee. The current LDRD is exploring alternatives that effect the risk profile as well as possible performance improvements. The DOE-SC NP base funding is targeted at simulation and analysis of the nEXO concept in preparation for the down select and refinement of the understanding of the detector as well as scientific effort on the large xenon test stand (LXTS) that will burn down one of the largest risks to the nEXO project. Lastly, LLNL is leading the pre-conceptual R&D effort and managing the funds for the nEXO collaboration. The results of this effort are reported elsewhere, but the scope of this executed at LLNL will be reported here and is primarily the engineering and construction of the LXTS experiment. The primary technical contribution of LLNL to the Project 8 concept is the formation and study of atomic tritium. Atomic tritium is necessary for Project 8 to reach the ultimate sensitivity. LLNL has considerable experience with tritium and is well suited for this crucial work. Although the focus of this work is strictly fundamental science, there has already been one significant spinoff to develop a new means to measure radio xenon in the air
72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
Gamma Spectrometry Code Rodeo for Uranium Enrichment—FY 2021 Report
In FY22, the participating Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories continued the work on the project “Gamma Spectrometry Code Rodeo for Uranium Enrichment”. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) continued their efforts to acquire spectra using uranium sources. A collimator (with side and back shields) was custom designed and constructed at ORNL. Spectra were acquired at ORNL using the uranium enrichment standards supplied by New Brunswick Laboratory (NBL) and the collimated M400 detector. Spectra were also acquired using steel absorbers of different thickness placed between the source and the collimated M400 detector. The plan was to ship the collimator to LLNL so that spectra could be acquired using the LLNL detector in collimated geometries. This activity was suspended since problems were noticed with the performance of the LLNL M400 detector. Also, it was brought to light to the project team that some of the aspects of the M400 detector had been updated by the vendor H3D in response to requests by the IAEA. In February 2021, the ORNL and LLNL M400 detectors were returned to the H3D factory in order to resolve the problems with the LLNL detector and to update ORNL and LLNL detectors to the same configuration as the M400 supplied to the IAEA. H3D repaired the LLNL M400 and performed the IAEA updates on both the ORNL and LLNL detectors. ORNL and LLNL received the detectors in April 2021. Data acquisition was continued using the upgraded detectors. ORNL re-collected the spectra using point sources and the NBL standards in uncollimated and collimated geometries. The collimator was shipped from ORNL to LLNL. Spectra were acquired at LLNL through Q4 of FY22. When the ORNL spectra were examined closely, it became apparent that there were spurious artifacts present in some of the spectra. This rendered suspect the ORNL spectra collected in June/July 2021 time frame. ORNL contacted H3D and per H3D’s advice, the M400 detector was returned to H3D for repairs in mid-August 2021. H3D diagnosed the problem and established that the root cause was the extra tight packaging that created a strain on the CZT crystals, causing one of them to break down. The repaired M400 was returned to ORNL in early September 2021. ORNL re-started data acquisition for the third time. Data was continued to be acquired at ORNL and LLNL through September 2021. The ORNL and LLNL data will be shared with the principal investigators from the analyzing laboratories. The GADRAS code and FRAM have been developed to have the capability to analyze the M400 spectra. Good quality spectra from FY21 have been analyzed using modified versions of GADRAS and FRAM. The spectra have also been analyzed using the GEM code. The analysis results from GADRAS, FRAM and GEM codes are presented and discussed in this report. Some preliminary results from FRAM and GEM analysis were presented in February 2021 at the U-Pu Isotopics Workshop sponsored by the IAEA. CZTU code is being modified to analyze M400 spectra. Data collection, code development and analysis will be continued in FY22 as per the FY22 Project Work Plan (PWP).
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
The Quantum Nature of the Neutrino
Over the last 100 years we have learned much about the neutrino, but there remain interesting questions about this weakly interacting particle. In particular, at LLNL we are developing an experiment to measure the quantum nature of the neutrino. The 2015 long range plan recom mended tonne-scale neutrinoless double beta decay experiments as the top new project priority and this experiment will target the quantum nature of the neutrino. The LLNL team is motivated and focused on developing the best technology for this experiment which is a liquid xenon time projection chamber called nEXO. Work on nEXO at LLNL started in 2015 with an LDRD and program development funds to de velop the nEXO concept, publish sensitivity predictions, explore alternatives and risks, and to build a credible project team and this effort is on going. In addition, we received research funding from DOE-SC NP and LLNL manages pre-conceptual R&D for the nEXO collaboration a portion of which is executed at LLNL. LLNL has a long history of building large projects, science projects and time projection chambers, but nEXO is in fact the first project of this scale that LLNL is prepared to lead for DOE-SC NP. We have the tools, skills, people and motivation to make nEXO a reality. The current program devel opment dollars are used to prepare the nEXO concept for down select and CD1. These internal LLNL dollars pay for a number of things including project staff to organize the nEXO collaboration for the various reviews, to develop the draft plans and structure to manage the project as well as setting up external advisory committees. The DOE-SC NP base funding is targeted at simulation and analysis of the nEXO concept in preparation for the down select and refinement of the under standing of the detector as well as scientific effort on the large xenon test stand (LXTS) that will burn down one of the largest risks to the nEXO project. Lastly, LLNL is leading the pre-conceptual R&D effort and managing the funds for the nEXO collaboration. LLNL continues to build the best scientific team for nEXO and this year that includes adding Ethan Bernard to lead the efforts on the LXTS. We will also soon add a new postoc, Samuel Hedges, in the fall to the LLNL nEXO team. The effort this year was influenced by the portfolio review, and there were a number of scientific activities led by LLNL to prepare for this review. In addition, we again took a lead role on the new sensitivity paper as well as publishing a paper based analyzing the effects of skin xenon in nEXO. LLNL leads the software and analysis for the project and we continued work in this area as well. High voltage remains a significant risk for the project and we continue to make progress on the LXTS that will mitigate this risk. Lastly we remain active in looking at how to scale the technology to larger scales, and expect to produce a paper on this topic in the near future.
72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021
The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021 are to record Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report is distributed electronically and is available at https://saer.llnl.gov/, the website for the LLNL annual environmental report. Previous LLNL annual environmental reports beginning with 1994 are also on the website. Some references in the electronic report text are underlined, which indicates that they are clickable links. Clicking on one of these links will open the related document, data workbook, or website. Sampling location maps throughout this report were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2021: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A. The report uses Système International units, consistent with the federal Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and Executive Order 12770, “Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs” (1991). For ease of comparison to environmental reports issued prior to 1991, dose values and many radiological measurements are given in both metric and U.S. customary units. A conversion table is provided in the glossary. The report is the responsibility of LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Monitoring data were obtained through the combined efforts of the Environmental Functional Area; Environmental Restoration Department; Physical and Life Sciences Environmental Monitoring Radiological Laboratory; and the Radiation Protection Functional Area.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Annual Environmental Report 2019
The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Environmental Report 2019 are to record LLNL's compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2019: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2016
The purposes of the Environmental Report 2016 are to record LLNL’s compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring. Specifically, the report discusses LLNL’s EMS; describes significant accomplishments in pollution prevention; presents the results of air, water, vegetation, and foodstuff monitoring; reports radiological doses from LLNL operations; summarizes LLNL’s activities involving special status wildlife, plants, and habitats; and describes the progress LLNL has made in remediating groundwater contamination. Environmental monitoring at LLNL, including analysis of samples and data, is conducted according to documented standard operating procedures. Duplicate samples are collected and analytical results are reviewed and compared to internal acceptance standards. This report is prepared for DOE by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area (EFA). Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report is distributed in electronic form and is available to the public at https://saer.llnl.gov/, the website for the LLNL annual environmental report. Previous LLNL annual environmental reports beginning with 1994 are also on the website.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Nuclear Data Sheets for A=266,270,274,278,282,286,290,294,298☆
Spectroscopic information such as production, identification, half-lives, decay modes and possible excited states for experimentally known nuclides of mass numbers 266, 270, 274, 278, 282, 286, 290, 294, and 298 are presented together with the recommended values, superseding information and data in the previous ENSDF and NDS evaluation by 2005Gu33. No nuclides have yet been identified for A=302. In the last 14 years, large amounts of new and definitive data on the superheavy nuclides (SHN) have become available, thus changing almost entirely the landscape of nuclear data in this mass region, as also indicated by a number of recent review articles: 2017Og01, 2016Ho09, 2016Ho06 (for fission barriers), 2015Og05, 2015Og07, 2015Mo25, 2015OgZX, 2013Th02, and 2011Og07. See 2016Ka49 for IUPAC technical discussions for the discovery of Z=117 (Ts), Z=115 (Mc), Z=113 (Nh), 2001Ka70 and 2003Ka71 for Z=110-112, 2011Ba54 for Z≥113, 2009Ba62 for Z=112, and 2016Ka50 for Z=118 (Og). A special issue of Nuclear Physics A444 (2015) is devoted to research on superheavy elements (SHE) with 27 articles. In particular, see article by 2015Ko20 on mass spectrometric searches for superheavy elements in terrestrial matter. See also Proceedings of Nobel Symposium NS160 ‘Chemistry and Physics of Heavy and Superheavy Elements’ published in Eur. Phys. Jour. Web of Conferences 131 (2016), in particular 2016UtZZ, 2016DmZZ and 2016HoZY. See also 2016DuZX for future prospects of discovery of elements beyond Z=118 A=266: {sup 266}Db, {sup 266}Sg, {sup 266}Bh, {sup 266}Hs and {sup 266}Mt are the experimentally identified nuclides with A=266. Identification of {sup 266}Lr from α decay of {sup 270}Db has been proposed by 2014Kh04 from experiments at GSI, but complete details and analyses of all the four decay chains reported in this experiment have not yet been published, and discussion in 2015Og05 review article considering their work from Dubna (2013Og04, 2011Og04) and from GSI (2014Kh04) still concluded that {sup 270}Db decayed dominantly by SF mode, in contrast with dominant α decay mode proposed by 2014Kh04. Experiments carried out at FLNR-JINR-Dubna in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL, GSI-SHIP facility, RIKEN, and LBNL facilities: {sup 266}Db from the α-decay of {sup 282}Nh in two correlated decay chains at Dubna; {sup 266}Sg as α-daughter of {sup 270}Hs in 12 correlated decay chains at Dubna and GSI; {sup 266}Bh in α decay of {sup 278}Nh in three correlated decay chains observed at RIKEN, and also directly with one event in {sup 249}Bk({sup 22}Ne,5n) at LBNL, and with four events in {sup 243}Am({sup 26}Mg,3n) at HIRFL-Lanzhou; {sup 266}Hs as α-daughter of {sup 270}Ds at GSI in two different experiments, six correlated decays in the first, and 25 decay chains in the second experiment, the analysis of which has not been fully reported as yet; and {sup 266}Mt directly in {sup 209}Bi({sup 58}Fe,n) reaction at GSI in two different experiments, observing three events in the first experiment and 12 events in the second, also produced in {sup 208}Pb({sup 59}Co,n) reaction at LBNL, observing five correlated decay chains. See also 2000Ho27 for discussion on {sup 266}Sg and {sup 266}Mt. A=270: {sup 270}Db, {sup 270}Bh, {sup 270}Hs, {sup 270}Mt and {sup 270}Ds are the experimentally identified nuclides with A=270 are presented. Experiments carried out at FLNR-JINR-Dubna in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL, GSI-SHIP facility, and RIKEN: {sup 270}Db from the decay of {sup 294}Ts in six correlated decay chains at Dubna and GSI; {sup 270}Bh as α great-granddaughter of {sup 282}Nh in two correlated decay chains observed at Dubna; {sup 270}Hs directly in {sup 248}Cm({sup 26}Mg,4n) reaction at GSI, and in {sup 226}Ra({sup 48}Ca,4n) reaction at Dubna; {sup 270}Mt as granddaughter of {sup 278}Ts in three correlated decay chains at RIKEN; and {sup 270}Ds directly in {sup 207}Pb({sup 64}Ni,n) at GSI in 33 correlated decay chains. A=274: {sup 274}Bh, {sup 274}Mt and {sup 274}Rg are the experimentally identified nuclides with A=274. Search for {sup 274}Ds in {sup 238}U({sup 40}Ar, 4n),E=5.7 MeV/nucleon reaction and subsequent α decays at GSI (1990Sc11) proved negative. Experiments carried out at FLNR-JINR-Dubna in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL, GSI-SHIP facility, and RIKEN: {sup 274}Bh from the decay of {sup 294}Ts in six correlated decay chains at Dubna and GSI, {sup 274}Mt produced as α daughter of {sup 282}Nh in two correlated decay chains observed at Dubna, and {sup 274}Rg as α daughter of {sup 278}Nh produced in three correlated decay chains at RIKEN. A=278: {sup 278}Mt, {sup 278}Rg and {sup 278}Nh are the experimentally identified nuclides with A=278. A very tentative evidence is provided for {sup 278}Bh and {sup 278}Hs from a chain originally observed and assigned to {sup 289}Fl by 1999Og10, but later reassigned by 2004Og10 to {sup 290}Fl, and further discussed in detail by 2016Ho09, where, based on systematics of α decays and SF half-lives, {sup 290}Fl is proposed to decay via ε mode to {sup 290}Nh, which then decays by an α chain, ending in {sup 278}Bh that decays by SF mode. Experiments carried out at FLNR-JINR-Dubna in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL labs in the USA, GSI-SHIP facility, and RIKEN: {sup 278}Mt from the decay of {sup 294}Ts in six correlated decay chains at Dubna and GSI, {sup 278}Rg produced as α daughter of {sup 282}Nh in two correlated decay chains observed at Dubna, and {sup 278}Nh produced directly in three correlated decay chains at RIKEN. A=282: {sup 282}Rg, {sup 282}Cn and {sup 282}Nh are the experimentally identified nuclides with A=282. A very tentative evidence is provided for {sup 282}Mt and {sup 282}Ds from a chain originally observed and assigned to {sup 289}Fl by 1999Og10, but later reassigned by 2004Og10 to {sup 290}Fl, and further discussed in detail by 2016Ho09, where, based on systematics of α decays and SF half-lives, {sup 290}Fl is proposed to decay via ε mode to {sup 290}Nh, which then decays by an α chain, ending in {sup 278}Bh that decays by SF mode. Experiments carried out at FLNR-Dubna, in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL labs in the USA, and at GSI-SHIP facility confirm the identification of these isotopes, {sup 282}Rg in α decay chain of {sup 294}Ts in six correlated decay chains at Dubna and GSI, {sup 282}Cn produced in four ways at Dubna: independently in one correlated decay chain, as α daughter of {sup 286}Lv in 11 correlated decay chains, as α grand-daughter of {sup 290}Lv in 12 correlated decay chains, as α great-grand daughter of {sup 294}Og in four correlated decay chains, and {sup 282}Nh produced at Dubna directly in two correlated decay chains. A=286: {sup 286}Nh and {sup 286}Fl are the only experimentally identified nuclides with A=286. A very tentative evidence is provided for {sup 286}Rg and {sup 286}Cn from a chain originally observed and assigned to {sup 289}Fl by 1999Og10, but later reassigned by 2004Og10 to {sup 290}Fl, and further discussed in detail by 2016Ho09, where, based on systematics of α decays and SF half-lives, {sup 290}Fl is proposed to decay via ε mode to {sup 290}Nh, which then decays by an α chain, ending in {sup 278}Bh that decays by SF mode. 2017Ka66 in experiments at RIKEN using GARIS separator interpret one correlated decay chain in three different ways, one involving possible production of {sup 294}Lv in {sup 248}Cm({sup 48}Ca,2n),E=261.6 MeV, and α decay to {sup 290}Fl which further decays to {sup 286}Cn. Experiments carried out at FLNR-Dubna, in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL labs in the USA, and at GSI-SHIP facility confirm the identification of these isotopes, {sup 286}Nh as α grand-daughter of {sup 294}Ts in six correlated decay chains, and {sup 286}Fl produced in three ways: independently in 11 correlated decay chains, as α daughter of {sup 290}Lv in 12 correlated decay chains, and as α grand-daughter of {sup 294}Og in four correlated decay chains. A=290: {sup 290}Mc and {sup 290}Lv are the only experimentally identified nuclides with A=290. A tentative evidence is provided for {sup 290}Nh and {sup 290}Fl from a chain originally observed and assigned to {sup 289}Fl by 1999Og10, but later reassigned by 2004Og10 to {sup 290}Fl, and further discussed in detail by 2016Ho09, where, based on systematics of α decays and SF half-lives, {sup 290}Fl is proposed to decay via ε mode to {sup 290}Nh, which then decays by an α chain, ending in {sup 278}Bh that decays by SF mode. 2017Ka66 in experiments at RIKEN using GARIS separator interpret one correlated decay chain in three different ways, one involving possible production of {sup 294}Lv in {sup 248}Cm({sup 48}Ca,2n),E=261.6 MeV, and α decay to {sup 290}Fl. Experiments carried out at FLNR-Dubna, in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL labs in the USA, and at GSI-SHIP facility confirm the identification of these isotopes, {sup 290}Mc as α daughter of {sup 294}Ts in six correlated decay chains, and {sup 290}Lv produced in two ways, independently in 14 correlated decay chains, and as α daughter of {sup 294}Og in four correlated decay chains. A=294: {sup 294}Ts and {sup 294}Og are the only experimentally identified nuclides with A=294. Experiments carried out at FLNR-Dubna, in collaboration with LLNL and ORNL labs in the USA, and at GSI-SHIP facility confirm the identification of these isotopes, with a total of six EVR-α-SF correlated decay chains observed for {sup 294}Ts and four for {sup 294}Og. Tentative identification of {sup 294}Lv is provided by 2017Ka66 from the observation one correlated event using GARIS-RIKEN facility, where this event is interpreted in three possible ways, two interpretations lead to production of {sup 293}Lv and successive odd-A nuclides of {sup 289}Fl, {sup 285}Cn and {sup 281}Ds, whereas the third prediction starts with the production of {sup 294}Lv and successive {sup 290}Fl and {sup 286}Cn nuclides. Search for {sup 294}Rg in natural gold materials (2011De03), and for {sup 294}Ds, {sup 294}Fl and {sup 294}Mc in natural Pt, Pb and Bi samples (2011De21) using accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS) proved negative, with extremely low upper limits established. Also 1980St05 did not see any evidence for {sup 294}Ds in natural Pt sample using AMS. A=298: Search for {sup 298}120 through fusion-evaporation reaction at Dubna, and for {sup 298}Fl and {sup 298}Mc in natural Pt, Pb and Bi samples using accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS) proved negative. Tentative assignment of three α-α-α decay chains by 2016Ho09 to {sup 299}120 in {sup 248}Cm({sup 54}Cr,3n){sup 299}120 at GSI was refuted by 2017He11, assigning these correlations to random events, instead. A=302: Fluorescent x rays from Z=120 element were observed by 2012Fr03 from compound nucleus {sup 302}120 produced in {sup 238}U({sup 64}Ni,X),E=6.6 MeV/nucleon at GANIL, and x-ray yields were measured, together with minimum average time deduced from x-ray multiplicity. The compound nucleus could decay by 3n- or 4n-channels to produce {sup 299}120 or {sup 298}120. 2012He05 and 2016Ho09 also produced {sup 302}120 compound nucleus in {sup 248}Cm({sup 54}Cr, xn){sup 302}120{sup *},E=6.035 MeV/nucleon; and {sup 238}U({sup 64}Ni,xn){sup 302}120{sup *},E=5.53 MeV/nucleon reactions using UNILAC at GSI. Three α-α-α correlated decays from {sup 248}Cm({sup 54}Cr,xn){sup 302}120{sup *} reaction were tentatively assigned by 2016Ho09 to {sup 299}120 decay, however, a detailed analysis by 2017He11 refuted this claim, ascribing these events to random sequences. There are no data tables for A=302.
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2012
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a premier research laboratory that is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As a national security laboratory, LLNL is responsible for ensuring that the nation’s nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable. The Laboratory also meets other pressing national security needs, including countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and strengthening homeland security, and conducting major research in atmospheric, earth, and energy sciences; bioscience and biotechnology; and engineering, basic science, and advanced technology. The Laboratory is managed and operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), and serves as a scientific resource to the U.S. government and a partner to industry and academia. LLNL operations have the potential to release a variety of constituents into the environment via atmospheric, surface water, and groundwater pathways. Some of the constituents, such as particles from diesel engines, are common at many types of facilities while others, such as radionuclides, are unique to research facilities like LLNL. All releases are highly regulated and carefully monitored. LLNL strives to maintain a safe, secure and efficient operational environment for its employees and neighboring communities. Experts in environment, safety and health (ES&H) support all Laboratory activities. LLNL’s radiological control program ensures that radiological exposures and releases are reduced to as low as reasonably achievable to protect the health and safety of its employees, contractors, the public, and the environment. LLNL is committed to enhancing its environmental stewardship and managing the impacts its operations may have on the environment through a formal Environmental Management System. The Laboratory encourages the public to participate in matters related to the Laboratory’s environmental impact on the community by soliciting citizens’ input on matters of significant public interest and through various communications. The Laboratory also provides public access to information on its ES&H activities. LLNL consists of two sites—an urban site in Livermore, California, referred to as the “Livermore Site,” which occupies 1.3 square miles; and a rural Experimental Test Site, referred to as “Site 300,” near Tracy, California, which occupies 10.9 square miles. In 2012 the Laboratory had a staff of approximately 7000.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2013
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a premier research laboratory that is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As a national security laboratory, LLNL is responsible for ensuring that the nation’s nuclear weapons remain safe, secure, and reliable. The Laboratory also meets other pressing national security needs, including countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and strengthening homeland security, and conducting major research in atmospheric, earth, and energy sciences; bioscience and biotechnology; and engineering, basic science, and advanced technology. The Laboratory is managed and operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), and serves as a scientific resource to the U.S. government and a partner to industry and academia. LLNL operations have the potential to release a variety of constituents into the environment via atmospheric, surface water, and groundwater pathways. Some of the constituents, such as particles from diesel engines, are common at many types of facilities while others, such as radionuclides, are unique to research facilities like LLNL. All releases are highly regulated and carefully monitored. LLNL strives to maintain a safe, secure and efficient operational environment for its employees and neighboring communities. Experts in environment, safety and health (ES&H) support all Laboratory activities. LLNL’s radiological control program ensures that radiological exposures and releases are reduced to as low as reasonably achievable to protect the health and safety of its employees, contractors, the public, and the environment. LLNL is committed to enhancing its environmental stewardship and managing the impacts its operations may have on the environment through a formal Environmental Management System. The Laboratory encourages the public to participate in matters related to the Laboratory’s environmental impact on the community by soliciting citizens’ input on matters of significant public interest and through various communications. The Laboratory also provides public access to information on its ES&H activities. LLNL consists of two sites—an urban site in Livermore, California, referred to as the “Livermore Site,” which occupies 1.3 square miles; and a rural Experimental Test Site, referred to as “Site 300,” near Tracy, California, which occupies 10.9 square miles. In 2013 the Laboratory had a staff of approximately 6,300.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Video Compression Routines Final Report CRADA No. TSB-1183-95
The purpose of this CRADA was to establish a framework for LLNL and NOVA Management, Inc. to Cooperatively develop video compression routines to be used to condense maintenance documentation provided on computers issued to Army mechanics to help them diagnose and repair equipment faults. In the past, paper technical manuals were the only means of communicating fault isolation, diagnostics and repair action information to maintenance personnel. The need for this information was at the weapon system itself as well as at the maintenance depot. This project addressed the need for means of efficient storage and retrieval of video (bandwidth issue) by maintenance personnel as they moved through the diagnostic procedures. Several research and development projects have employed interactive stored video as a means of providing maintenance information to the soldier. The problem with this approach was the massive data storage requirement. The overall objective of the project was to develop fast decompression and playback routines for full motion, coIor video. A survey was done of existing standards and potential new routines and techniques for video compression and playback to determine which were suitable for use on the CTS. Playback speeds were preferred to beat 30 frames per second on the target architecture. Compression ratios were expected to store several minutes of synchronized video in 1 MB. Playback routines were Windows 3.1 compatible. Identification of any hardware upgrades associated with playback were made when necessary. A demonstration of existing LLNL algorithms for still frame decompression which represented a current benchmark of data compression performance was completed. NOVA Management and LLNL used some of the compression technologies developed or currently being developed at LLNL to address the requirements of this SBIR. LLNL started by evaluating current compression technologies or combinations thereof to estimate the best compression ratio LLNL could achieve at this stage. LLNL ported some of our software from the SUN workstation environment to the PC or equivalent environment (e.g., MAC) so as to closely match the computer environment suggested by the Army. Finally, LLNL designed and outlined new algorithms to meet the desired video compression of CTS.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
This Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan describes the measures that are taken at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) Experimental Test Site (Site 300) near Tracy, California, to prevent, control, and handle potential spills from aboveground containers that can contain 55 gallons or more of oil. This SPCC Plan complies with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 (40 CFR 112) and with 40 CFR 761.65(b) and (c), which regulates the temporary storage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This Plan has also been prepared in accordance with Division 20, Chapter 6.67 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC 6.67) requirements for oil pollution prevention (referred to as the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act [APSA]), and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. 436.1. This SPCC Plan establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines for aboveground oil storage and use at Site 300. This SPCC Plan has been prepared for the entire Site 300 facility and replaces the three previous plans prepared for Site 300: LLNL SPCC for Electrical Substations Near Buildings 846 and 865 (LLNL 2015), LLNL SPCC for Building 883 (LLNL 2015), and LLNL SPCC for Building 801 (LLNL 2014). The SPCC Plan is intended for distribution to all LLNL personnel who operate, maintain, and are responsible for containers of oil (oil-handlers). The updated Plan is available online at: https://eshint. llnl.gov/spcc/spcc-hp.html.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Year-end report on FY13 activities for J8A6
The Russian-3 (R3) HANE, a 60 km high-latitude burst with yield estimated at 300 kt, was chosen for the demonstration. This test was selected because it allowed LLNL to leverage existing funding, which was directed at extending LLNL’s capability to simulate HANEs at atmospheric altitudes (<100 km). David Larsen (LLNL) developed a new particle-tracing code that tracks monoenergetic electrons of various energies from a point source as they interact with the atmosphere, losing energy and ‘pitch-angle scattering’ as they are transported. A relatively large fraction of the initial electrons are able to escape the atmosphere and were handed off to LANL for further processing to calculate the effect on space based assets. LANL binned the electrons into a phase-space density as a function of energy and equatorial pitch-angle and showed that all of the electrons would travel along field lines to the conjugate point in the Southern hemisphere, where they would likely be absorbed, because their equatorial pitch-angles were too field-aligned to permit them to ‘mirror’ above the atmosphere and be ‘trapped’. Thus, the initial LLNL output did not produce any trapped electrons to input into LANL’s diffusion code and so no study of the long-term evolution of the trapped population and its effect on space-based assets could be performed. It was recognized that LLNL’s calculation did not properly model the low-probability, large-angle scattering associated with a single Coulomb interaction between a beta-decay electron and the nucleus of the neutral particles in the high atmosphere, which would be the dominant interaction above some altitude (>100 km) and might allow the electrons to be pitch-angle scattered sufficiently to become trapped. A second LLNL calculation that properly included this single interaction probability was conducted and the output processed by LANL. It was shown that a small fraction of the initial population (~0.01%) would be ‘locally trapped’; however, even this small population would likely be absorbed within a few minutes as the electrons drifted around earth and eventually ended up on field lines where they would be absorbed in the atmosphere. The output of the second LLNL calculation was found to produce about 4x fewer backscattered electrons than previous work (Selesnick et al 2012), and so the remainder of the FY13 LANL effort on the project was aimed at trying to resolve this discrepancy. LANL implemented a stochastic differential equation to simulate the backscatter process so that the results could be compared to Larsen and Selesnick. Initial results from this capability have been obtained, but no quantitative comparison to Larsen or Selesnick has been done yet.
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
Site 300 SPCC Plan
This Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan describes the measures that are taken at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) Experimental Test Site (Site 300) near Tracy, California, to prevent, control, and handle potential spills from aboveground containers that can contain 55 gallons or more of oil. This SPCC Plan complies with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 (40 CFR 112) and with 40 CFR 761.65(b) and (c), which regulates the temporary storage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This Plan has also been prepared in accordance with Division 20, Chapter 6.67 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC 6.67) requirements for oil pollution prevention (referred to as the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act [APSA]), and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. 436.1. This SPCC Plan establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines for aboveground oil storage and use at Site 300. This SPCC Plan has been prepared for the entire Site 300 facility and replaces the three previous plans prepared for Site 300: LLNL SPCC for Electrical Substations Near Buildings 846 and 865 (LLNL 2015), LLNL SPCC for Building 883 (LLNL 2015), and LLNL SPCC for Building 801 (LLNL 2014).
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Site 300 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan
This Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan describes the measures that are taken at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) Experimental Test Site (Site 300) near Tracy, California, to prevent, control, and handle potential spills from aboveground containers that can contain 55 gallons or more of oil. This SPCC Plan complies with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 (40 CFR 112) and with 40 CFR 761.65(b) and (c), which regulates the temporary storage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This Plan has also been prepared in accordance with Division 20, Chapter 6.67 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC 6.67) requirements for oil pollution prevention (referred to as the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act [APSA]), and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. 436.1. This SPCC Plan establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines for aboveground oil storage and use at Site 300. This SPCC Plan has been prepared for the entire Site 300 facility and replaces the three previous plans prepared for Site 300: LLNL SPCC for Electrical Substations Near Buildings 846 and 865 (LLNL 2015), LLNL SPCC for Building 883 (LLNL 2015), and LLNL SPCC for Building 801 (LLNL 2014).
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗