Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Administration and Management”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 685 records · Page 38

Adaptive Site Management Strategies for the Hanford Central Plateau Groundwater

Adaptive site management (ASM) is a systematic and iterative management approach that can be used to expedite the remediation of large and/or complex sites. ASM is defined as a formal and systematic project or site management approach centered on rigorous site planning and a firm understanding of site conditions and uncertainties, using science and technology to routinely re-evaluate and prioritize site remedial actions and characterization activities. The goal of the approach is to create a framework of structured and continuous planning, implementation, and assessment processes that accommodates new information and changing site conditions to develop effective and efficient cleanup approaches that achieves the required outcome(s) while optimizing costs, cleanup timeframe, and performance. Central to ASM is an evolving conceptual site model (CSM). Over time, incremental reductions in uncertainty associated with the CSM will occur, while supporting continued progress toward site cleanup and closure through remedy optimization and evaluation. ASM has the potential to expedite cleanup for the Central Plateau area at Hanford through a planned and systematic approach for reducing uncertainty with targeted characterization activities, while continuing remediation activities that advance cleanup for key risk-driving contaminants. A core component of cleanup within the Central Plateau is the 200 West Pump-and-Treat (P&T) system. Even with an active P&T remedy, uncertainty exists with respect to plume distributions, total mass in the aquifer, and currently known continuing sources. Additional uncertainty is associated with multiple contaminant source locations in the vadose zone, which have the potential to create new groundwater plumes in the absence of any source control measures, although not all contaminant fluxes to groundwater will result in contaminant concentrations above cleanup levels. Collectively, these uncertainties need to be addressed in the CSM to support effective and efficient site progress toward cleanup goal(s). Other nontechnical factors that may warrant an ASM approach at the Hanford Central Plateau are associated with the formation of operable units (OUs) used to manage cleanup. With the exception of the 200-ZP-1 OU, the three remaining groundwater OUs only have interim action records of decision. Nine vadose zone source area OUs are also in the early stages of the remedial investigation and feasibility study process, with pending characterization and technology identification activities. A set of proposed site objectives for the Central Plateau are provided in this document as an initial consideration/example and basis for discussion for ASM implementation. These example site objectives were selected with the goal of maintaining protectiveness at the Columbia River through confinement of contaminant plumes within an administratively controlled area below existing surface waste sites and waste disposal facilities. Although site decision makers and regulators need to provide concurrence, these site objectives are used in this document to describe the elements of an ASM approach, including selection of interim objectives and a long-term adaptive management plan. Interim objectives are also defined to yield measurable incremental progress toward the overall site goals. This document identifies initial technical considerations for developing an ASM framework for the Central Plateau cleanup decisions. These considerations are intended to facilitate more specific decisions, such as objectives, near- and long-term actions, and performance metrics, to develop an overall approach that maintains protectiveness but recognizes the uncertainty, long timeframe, and technical challenges that need to be considered in selecting, implementing, and managing remediation at the Hanford Central Plateau.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 1, January-March 1991]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 The Safety Review and Approval Process for Space Nuclear Power Sources, G. L. Bennett; 19 Report on the American Nuclear Society International Topical Meeting: "The Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities", E. G. Silver; 35 Book Review: Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, Proceedings to the International Centre tor Heat and Mass Processes T. S. Kress; 38 Fast Reactor Technology in the 1990s: A Summary of the 1990 International Fast Reactor Safety Meeting, A. E. Levin; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 56 Effects of Chemical Phenomena on LWR Severe Accident Fission Product Behavior, A. P. Malinauskas and T. S. Kress; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 65 Technical Note: Safety Parameter Display Systems—10 Years Later, R. J. Eckenrode; 68 Potential Application of Neural Networks to the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants, R. E. Uhrig; DESIGN FEATURES: 80 Twenty-First DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning Conference, R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First; 91 Impact of an Apparent Radiation Embrittlement Rate on the Life Expectancy of PWR Vessel Supports, R. D. Cheverton, G. C. Robinson, W. E. Pennell, and R. K. Nanstad; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 103 Technical Note: The Impact of Offsite Factors on the Safety Performance of Small Nuclear Power Plants, Yu. D. Baranaev and A. N. Viktorov; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 109 Activities Related to Waste Management, Compiled by E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 118 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 121 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 123 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 140 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 150 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 155 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities, Compiled by E. G. Silver; 157 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1990; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 79 MIT Offers Summer Program on Nuclear Power Reactor Safety; 108 Harvard School of Public Health Offers Several Short Courses; 139 Short Course and Workshop on Nuclear Criticality Safety at University of New Mexico; 160 SCK/CEN Announces Training Course on Emergency Planning and Response; 161 The Authors; 164 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 31

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

FRMAC Laboratory Analysis Manual Volume 1, Revision 0

The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) is an operational center, available on request by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to nuclear and radiological incidents as described in the National Response Framework (NRF). Under the Federal Interagency Operational Plan for Response and Recovery’s Nuclear/Radiological Annex, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has the responsibility to maintain the operational readiness of the FRMAC during the emergency phase of an event. FRMAC is initially established and managed by the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) and serves as an interagency operations center with representatives from various federal, state, and local radiological response organizations. The purpose of the FRMAC is to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) in their mission to protect the health and well-being of their citizens with: • Verified radiation measurements. • Interpretations of radiation distributions based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or local Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs). • Characterization of overall radiological conditions. Once a declaration to respond to a radiological emergency has been made, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters will coordinate the response in consultation with the cognizant NNSA Regional Coordinating Office (RCO). Each of the eight RCOs maintain a 24-hour response capability for radiological emergencies that may occur in states served by its region. When a FRMAC is established, it operates under the parameters of the Incident Command System (ICS), as defined in the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) construct. The Consequence Management Home Team (CMHT) will be activated immediately during normal business hours (Pacific Time Zone), and within two hours otherwise. The Consequence Management Response Team (CMRT) is prepared for deployment within six hours after activation. Along with the assets, FRMAC provides an operational framework for coordinating of all federal off-site radiological monitoring and assessment activities during a response to a radiological emergency to support the coordinating agency and SLTT governments. Potential radiological emergencies that fall within FRMAC vary widely in terms of the area affected, the nature of the contamination, and the scope of the government’s response. Detonation of a nuclear device, accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant, and a terrorist threat are just a few of the many possible scenarios FRMAC must be prepared to address. Through all this, supporting the state, local, and tribal organizations in the protection of the public remains the primary goal of the federal response.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Annual Site Environmental Report (2019)

Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (the Laboratory’s) annual site environmental reports are prepared by the Laboratory’s environmental organizations, as required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and Order 458.1, Administrative Change 3, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The following chapters in this report discuss our success in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and orders (Chapter 2, Compliance Summary); how we manage the Laboratory’s environmental performance (Chapter 3, Environmental Programs); how we monitor for air emissions of radioactive materials and climate conditions (Chapter 4, Air Quality); how we monitor for effects of Laboratory operations on groundwater quality (Chapter 5, Groundwater Protection); how we monitor the movement of chemicals and radionuclides by storm water runoff and the levels of chemicals and radionuclides in deposited sediment (Chapter 6, Watershed Quality); how we monitor for the presence, levels, and effects of chemicals and radionuclides in plants, animals, and soil (Chapter 7, Ecosystem Health); and finally, what radionuclide dose or risk from chemical exposure members of the public may experience as a result of Laboratory operations (Chapter 8, Public Dose and Risk Assessment).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report 2020

Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (the Laboratory’s) annual site environmental reports are prepared each year by the Laboratory’s environmental organizations, as required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and Order 458.1, Administrative Change 4, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The following chapters in this report discuss our success in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and orders (Chapter 2, Compliance Summary); how we manage the Laboratory’s environmental performance (Chapter 3, Environmental Programs and Analytical Data Quality); how we monitor for air emissions of radioactive materials and climate conditions (Chapter 4, Air Quality); how we monitor for effects of Laboratory operations on groundwater quality (Chapter 5, Groundwater Protection); how we monitor the movement of chemicals and radionuclides by storm water runoff and the levels of chemicals and radionuclides in deposited sediment (Chapter 6, Watershed Quality); how we monitor for the presence, levels, and effects of chemicals and radionuclides in plants, animals, soil, and vegetation (Chapter 7, Ecosystem Health); and finally, what radionuclide dose or risk from chemical exposure members of the public may experience as a result of Laboratory operations (Chapter 8, Public Dose and Risk Assessment).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Overview and Current Progress of the DOE/NNSA Nuclear Criticality Safety Program Training and Education Program

Since 2011, the US Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) has been providing a two-week nuclear criticality safety (NCS) practitioner course to support the training and qualification of new NCS staff. In 2013, an NCS Manager’s course was developed for process supervisors, managers, regulators, and other professionals with NCS-related responsibilities, and, in 2017, an additional course was proposed for Criticality Safety Officers (CSOs). In addition to hands-on training, other NCSP-funded tasks include training on sensitivity/uncertainty methods, NCS resource pipeline tasks, development of NCS guides, maintenance and development of Nuclear Criticality Safety Education Training (NCSET) modules and designing of a new subcritical assembly for hands-on training purposes. This paper provides an overview of the NCSP training and education program. The status of the NCSP hands-on training program will also be provided.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of LEU fuels to support the high-performance reactors. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel. The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR. The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-licensed reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of the high-performance reactors to operate with LEU fuels. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel.The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR.The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-regulated reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification.

Shokes, Tamara↗

sparkctl [SWR-25-109]

This package implements configuration and orchestration of Spark clusters with standalone cluster managers. This is useful in environments like HPCs where the infrastructure implemented by cloud providers, such as AWS, is not available. It is particularly helpful when users want to deploy Spark but do not have administrative control of the servers.

Thom, Daniel [National Renewable Energy Laboratory↗

Evaluation of the Radioactive Material Released in the Harborview Research and Training Building and Some Implications for Emergency Response

On 2 May 2019, during the 137 Cs source recovery operation, a source capsule in a research irradiator containing approximately 77.1 TBq was breached. Based on a geometric reconstruction analysis of the damage to the capsule, approximately 46.3 GBq (0.04%) was impacted by the chop saw (grinder) inside a mobile hot cell on the loading dock at the University of Washington Harborview Research and Training (HRT) Building. A very small fraction of the material impacted, less than 1%, was released from the mobile hot cell and then to the rest of the HRT Building. The objectives of this project were to assess the accidental release of 137 CsCl and its implications related to emergency response methods and the ramifications of 137 CsCl transport. The phenomenology of this event was also compared with past alkali halide dispersal events. The vast number of measurements and samples collected by the remediation contractors, the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Emergency Support Team, and the small number of retrospective samples collected by the authors informed the analysis. The techniques included (1) autoradiography and electron microscopy of samples collected from the HRT Building and the irradiator, (2) 3D visualization of deposition on surfaces and within the ventilation system, and (3) a study of the damage to the source capsule to evaluate the Cs particle size and particle composition due to the grinding accident. Subsequently, the cesium contaminant transport through the numerous pathways in the building was reconstructed to assess the deposition on surfaces as a function of particle size. Furthermore, the implications for emergency response are relevant to data quality and management. A Data Quality Objective guides data collection methods so that they have appropriate accuracy and precision for the intended application. Recommendations were made with respect to the sample collection protocols and archiving of samples.

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗

FY22 Laboratory Directed Research and Development Annual Report

The Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program yields foundational scientific research and development (R&D) essential to growing SRNL’s core competencies, in alignment with SRNL’s Strategic Plan to provide long-term benefits to the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and other customers and stakeholders. Five strategic goals are outlined in SRNL’s strategic plan: 1) Provide applied science and engineering for EM’s active clean-up sites and LM’s post closure management sites; 2) Provide science-based solutions for gaps identified in nonproliferation strategic vision and support the government in actives impacting national security; 3) Lead ST&E as the central technical authority for processing tritium loaded reservoirs and support production of plutonium pits; 4) Align science and energy security programs by focusing modern modeling, simulation, and data analytics tools on materials engineering and performance applications; 5) Build a workforce for the future.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FY24 Laboratory Directed Research and Development Annual Report

The Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program yields foundational scientific research and development (R&D) essential to growing SRNL’s core competencies, in alignment with SRNL’s Strategic Plan to provide long-term benefits to the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and other customers and stakeholders. Five strategic goals are outlined in SRNL’s strategic plan: 1) Provide applied science and engineering for EM’s active clean-up sites and LM’s post closure management sites 2) Provide science-based solutions for gaps identified in nonproliferation strategic vision and support the government in activities impacting national security 3) Lead Science, Technology & Engineering as the central technical authority for processing tritium loaded reservoirs and support production of plutonium pits 4) Align science and energy security programs by focusing modern modeling, simulation, and data analytics tools on materials engineering and performance applications 5) Build a workforce for the future

Clark, Sue [Savannah River National Laboratory (SR↗

GridDS: Data Science Toolkit for Energy Grid Data

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the demand for energy is expected to increase 50% by the year 20501. While energy standards, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard 1547, (Basso 2015) and monitoring with wide area management systems (WAMS) (Liu 2017, Zhou 2016) have enabled large scale data collection and storage, the application of this data in mitigating costs associated with increased consumer demand is an ongoing focus for energy research. This ubiquitous data collection presents a promising opportunity for machine learning and data science to improve efficiency of distributed energy resources (DERs). The GridDS software toolkit is designed to leverage advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), outage management systems data (OMS), Supervisory control Data Acquisition (SCADA), and geographic information systems (GIS) to forecast future energy demands and detect incipient grid failures. GridDS is a python software library designed to be modular and generalizable to data recorded by DERs. In adapting to disparate datasets recorded by various WAMS, GridDS provides a range of unique functionality not presently implemented in current WAMS which have highly specific software infrastructure by design. GridDS functionality ranges from data specification and preparation, to training and validation for state of the art machine learning, to interactive data visualization. For data intake, GridDS combines: Pandera: a library for creating data specifications. TimeScaleDB: a postgresSQL database infrastructure for efficient storage of timeseries data. Dataset class: A custom dataset class / interface that ensures modularity between a range of synthetic and live recorded datasets. Is

Ladd, Alexander↗

Report series: Evaluation, Finding of Effect, and Mitigation Documentation for the 1960s Dormitories and 1950s Quonset Hut Foundations, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada [3 Reports Consolidated]

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to modernize the town of Mercury at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada, to meet current and future National Weapons Science, Global and Homeland Security Programs, and Environmental Management mission requirements. These plans—including anticipated demolitions, consolidations, and rebuilding at Mercury—are considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 U.S.C. § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 U.S.C. § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. Part 800. Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of Mercury in 2017. This effort resulted in the identification, recording, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District, as well as the identification of its contributing components. This district was recommended eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP or National Register) under Criteria A and C, but was unevaluated under Criteria B and D at that time. The Mercury Historic District contains 153 individual landscapes, buildings, and structures. Of these resources, DRI recommends all except one as contributing elements of the historic district during its period of significance corresponding to nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. During most of the Cold War, the land now called the NNSS was referred to as the Nevada Test Site (NTS). This report evaluates resources dating to the 1950s and 1960s between Jangle and Knothole Streets and south of Ranger Avenue in Mercury prior to the proposed demolition of all resources in that area between Sandstone and Greenhouse Avenues as a phase of the larger modernization program mentioned above. Although the Mercury Historic District as a whole is eligible to the National Register, further evaluation of these properties, as detailed in this report, indicates that none are individually eligible under any of the Secretary of Interior’s Significance Criteria, either at the national or local level.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2018 LDRD Annual Report (Argonne National Laboratory)

Argonne National Laboratory’s Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program encourages the development of novel technical concepts, enhances the Laboratory’s research and development (R&D) capabilities, and enables pursuit of strategic laboratory goals. Argonne’s LDRD projects are proposal based and peer reviewed, supporting ideas that require advanced exploration so they can be sufficiently developed to pursue support through normal programmatic channels. Among the aims of the projects supported by the LDRD program are the establishment of engineering proofs of principle, assessment of design feasibility for prospective facilities, development of instrumentation or computational methods or systems, and discoveries in fundamental science and exploratory development. All LDRD projects have demonstrable ties to one or more of the science, energy, environment, and national security missions of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and many are also relevant to the missions of other federal agencies that sponsor work at Argonne. A natural consequence of the more “applied” type projects is their concurrent relevance to industry. The LDRD program is managed in overarching portfolios, each containing multiple projects each fiscal year. The LDRD Prime portfolio is further divided into strategic focus areas aligned with Argonne’s strategic plan. The largest component of Argonne’s program is LDRD Prime, which emphasizes R&D explicitly aligned with Laboratory major initiatives in support of Argonne’s strategic plan. The choice of Focus Areas under the LDRD Prime component reflects the major initiatives; the state of development of relevant technical fields; the potential value of advancing those fields to DOE/NNSA and the nation; and the compatibility of the fields with existing facilities, capabilities, and staff expertise at Argonne. Focus Areas with projects that ended in FY18 are: Advanced Computing, Biological and Environmental Science Capability Development, Energy Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Hard X-ray Sciences, Materials and Chemistry, Securing Energy and Critical Resources, and The Universe as Our Laboratory (ULab).

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Understanding Structures of Cyber Competition in an Era of Major Power Rivalry

Over the past two decades, the cyber domain has emerged and evolved into a key strategic domain for nations across the globe. Security strategies are espoused by heads of state that focus on how to manage the increasingly enormous, crosscutting impact that the cyber domain has on national security across economic, military, intelligence, intellectual property, and countless other facets. These strategies frequently evolve, and even change entirely, as leaders adapt to new technologies and administrations change. Even if these strategies did not change at all, they would take inordinate amounts of time to effectively implement within the organizational structures of government. The time required to go from setting department and agency-level goals, to the time small teams have well-oiled processes and expertise to accomplish tactical objectives that meet the strategic vision is lengthy. With near certainty, by the time objectives and vision are implemented, the landscape, strategy, or both has changed entirely. While this churn will likely never cease due to the rapidly changing nature of the cyber domain, this problem raises an important question: can governmental structures be organized to rapidly adapt to changing cyber strategies? As offices responsible for particular missions in cyberspace shuffle about within the bureaucracy, are technical capabilities enabled or enhanced? No matter how advanced a particular technical capability is or how adept the staff is at solving problems, they will be ineffective if placed haphazardly within the organization: the right authorities may not exist for their office, the correct lines of interpersonal communication may not be established properly, or insufficient resources have not been allocated to effectively deploy a brilliant technical solution. This concept of organizational agility in the context of national cyber capabilities is important when taking into account the National Defense Strategy’s emphasis on cyber capability and the ability of the United States to compete and rapidly adapt to new challenges posed by rivals. As a nation, we are at a point where technology evolves rapidly enough to warrant thoughtful and nimble changes to the bureaucratic structures that support how cyber operations are carried out. Taking these questions and cross-comparing them to the organizational structures across China, Russia, and the United States provides for an interesting thought experiment. As non-democratic regimes, China and Russia have differing priorities and internal power dynamics than the United States and thus organize their governments differently. By combining known and broadcasted strategies of these nations with the observed technical capabilities demonstrated in the public domain, we can begin to see how organizational structures map to strategic goals and directly enable technical capabilities. Insight can be gained by introducing organizational structures into traditional analysis focusing solely around strategies and capabilities; additionally, otherwise unknown capabilities or intents might be discovered or inferred by analyzing organizational structures alone. Analyzing cyber operations from this oft-overlooked perspective could potentially provide useful insight and more concrete actions that can be undertaken to realize the National Defense Strategy’s goals.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

LLM Generation of Online Courses from a Curated Set of Documents in the Nuclear Safeguards Domain

A multidisciplinary team at Argonne National Laboratory explores the application of advanced technologies to enhance knowledge transfer and retention within the nuclear safeguards domain. Specifically, it examines the feasibility of leveraging secure large language models (LLMs) to streamline the creation of e-learning modules for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of International Nuclear Safeguards (NA-241). The initiative addresses the critical need for preserving institutional memory and accelerating skill development amidst the imminent retirement of senior professionals in the field in addition to supporting good knowledge management practices. The project integrates instructional design theory with cutting-edge AI technologies to transform curated document sets from the Safeguards Knowledge Repository (SKR) into modular online courses. By automating the generation of learning objectives and instructional content, the effort aims to reduce manual effort while maintaining high-quality educational outcomes. A limited measure of human supervision, however, ensures accuracy, relevance, and alignment with NNSA’s strategic priorities. Key findings highlight the potential of AI-assisted course generation to support safeguards professionals by creating structured, interactive learning experiences. The report underscores the importance of SME validation to address limitations in AI-generated content, such as terminology errors and gaps in coverage. Recommendations include adopting a structured workflow combining LLM acceleration with expert oversight to ensure accuracy, usability, and alignment with learner needs. This work demonstrates Argonne’s commitment to advancing national security and scientific excellence through innovative knowledge management solutions.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗