Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Facilities”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
DOE OSTI2020

Facility Cybersecurity Framework Best Practices

Federal facilities are increasingly adopting automation and connecting to the Internet creating an energy-internet-of-things environment that converges operational technology (OT) and information technology (IT). Today's buildings increasingly weave together networked sensors and cyber and physical systems that enable data to be collected, aggregated, exchanged, stored and monetized in new ways. Building technological advances have created new energy technology, services, markets and value creation opportunities (e.g. transactive energy, two-way grid communications, machine learning, and increased use of renewable and distributed energy resources). But as larger data sets are being exchanged at faster speeds between an increasing number of OT systems, it becomes more difficult to protect the security of the data lifecycle and the physical equipment it interacts with. These challenges are especially difficult to overcome because the economic and environmental gain (interoperability, big data, social networks and ubiquitous information sharing) are driving these prominent trends in the digital age. Often cybersecurity is an afterthought. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) funded the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to develop various cybersecurity tools, trainings, and reports to aid federal facility managers – and other building owners and operators – in better applying frameworks and lessons learned from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), risk management framework (RMF), DOE’s cybersecurity capability maturity model (C2M2), and a wide variety of industry best practices and guidance documents (i.e., NIST 800 series, Department of Defense United Facilities Criteria). This set of tools, collectively known as the FEMP Facility-Related Control System Cyber Toolkit (FRCS Cyber Toolkit)2, is focused on cybersecurity concerns from facility-related control systems and other operational technology (OT), such as industrial control systems (ICS). The FRCS Cyber Toolkit can be applied across six of the sixteen critical infrastructure sectors designated by the Department of Homeland Security, including government facilities, healthcare and public health, commercial facilities (e.g., public assembly, offices, lodging), financial services (e.g., banking and insurance), emergency services (e.g., fire and police stations), and information technology. With increasingly converged IT and OT systems, it is crucial to address OT cybersecurity considerations and assess how the seam of these two systems could impact the overall cybersecurity posture of a facility. The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the best possible method to use FRCS Cyber Toolkit (section 2.0) and distilled cybersecurity best practices for the federal facilities to address growing non-linear cyber threats (section 3.0). Recommendations in this document are aggregated from several NIST and other documents (see Appendix A for additional details).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Jupiter Laser Facility Annual Report, FY 2025

Dear JLF community, I cannot believe I am now entering my third year as JLF director — time definitely flies when you are having fun! FY25 was another pivotal year for the Jupiter Laser Facility, marked by both scientific achievement and growing visibility for our community. Building on the successful reopening and refurbishment of the facility, we continued to demonstrate how JLF drives innovation in high energy density and fusion energy science, laser technology, and workforce development. Across Janus, Titan, and COMET, users executed a diverse portfolio of experiments, from dynamic compression and opacity measurements to laser plasma interactions, laboratory astrophysics, and advanced diagnostics. These efforts are highlighted in this report, including the development of new probes that capture the time evolution of plasmas on a single shot, and diagnostics and platforms that are already impacting experiments at NIF and other large facilities. JLF continues to serve as both a testbed for new ideas and a bridge to larger scale campaigns. FY25 also showcased the broader role of JLF within the Laboratory and the national HED science ecosystem. The NIF JLF User Groups Meeting in February brought nearly 180 participants to Livermore and highlighted the scientific progress made during JLF’s first full year of renewed operations. JLF research and users were recognized with Director’s Institutional Awards and Early and Mid Career awards, underscoring the quality and impact of the work performed here. Our team also contributed prominently to national conversations about laser safety, plasma physics, and inertial fusion energy through invited talks, conferences, and professional society leadership. JLF’s integration with LaserNetUS deepened this year as well. We launched a new technical exchange program across LaserNetUS facilities and kicked it off with a JLF team visit to the BELLA Center at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These exchanges are strengthening operations, sharing best practices, and improving the user experience across the network. Filming for the LaserNetUS “Behind the Scenes” series and participation in the annual LaserNetUS meeting further increased the visibility of our facility and our users. At the same time, JLF continues to play a central role in ambitious new programs, such as the Big Aperture Thulium laser effort funded through one of the DOE Office of Science Microelectronics Science Research Centers, which will use JLF infrastructure to explore next generation high rep rate lasers for EUV and x-ray source development. A core part of our mission remains training the next generation of scientists. In FY25, we welcomed another cohort of summer students, who joined experimental teams on Titan and presented their research at LLNL’s student poster symposium and national inertial fusion energy meetings. JLF users and early career scientists showcased their work at conferences across the country, highlighting experiments performed at the facility. These hands on experiences, and the mentoring provided by our staff and user teams, are central to JLF’s identity as a true user facility. Finally, FY25 reinforced JLF’s role as a focal point for partnerships and outreach. We hosted visits from international collaborators, science leaders, and we shared the story of the facility through venues such as the Big Ideas Lab podcast. These interactions help connect our work to a broader scientific and policy audience and open new pathways for collaboration. As we look ahead, the combination of refurbished hardware, new capabilities like STILETTO and enhanced short pulse performance on Titan, strong partnerships across LLNL and LaserNetUS, and a growing user community positions JLF for an even more ambitious program in the coming years. I am deeply grateful to our technical and operations staff for their dedication, to our LLNL partners for their continued support, and to our users for bringing bold, creative ideas to the facility. I look forward to more experiments, capabilities, partnerships, and groundbreaking science in the years to come! With brightest regards, Félicie Albert, JLF Director.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Towards an HPC Complementary Computing Facility

This Letter considers the design for computing facilities that are complementary to the leadership class High Performance Computing (HPC) facilities. This design envisions a future where funding agencies are allocating greater resources for leadership class facilities and these facilities will provide a significant part of the total compute cycles for HEP Experiments. While a leadership class facility (LCF) may provide cycles and advanced architectures, the facility does not necessarily provide all of the services needed to help HEP users make the best use of the HPC facility, as well as the services needed to provide computing for workflows that are not a good fit for the HPC facilities. This Letter outlines some of the necessary components of a facility designed to provide those services and capabilities.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Integral and Separate Effects Test Facilities To Support Water Cooled Small Modular Reactors: A Review

This study reviews previous experimental facilities and test programs relevant to water-cooled reactor system design and analysis to meet regulatory compliances. This study aims to find the best solution for designing the required experiments, obtaining necessary test data, and verifying the developed computer code/models to support the new reactor design and development while minimizing cost and time while leveraging experiences from previous facilities to minimize. Nuclear reactor licensing requires supportive design, analysis, and experimental results to ensure the safety of the full-scale prototype reactor in regular operation, as well as during postulated accident scenarios. These reactor design analyses are generally performed using system codes and other associated simulation tools that require assessment, verification and validation using an appropriate experimental dataset. Experimental facilities used for reactor system safety analysis and system code assessments are categorized into integral effects test (IET) and separate effects test (SET) facilities. Further, these IET and SET experiments and studies use geometrically scaled systems to reproduce the prototype system behavior at a reasonable cost, albeit with some scaling-related distortions. The design challenge of these model facilities is to identify and minimize scaling distortions while reproducing the most important operational phenomena in steady-state operation and in postulated accident scenarios. Lessons learned from previous experimental facilities, models, and correlations can support the development of new multipurpose, scaled, hybrid, integrated, and modular experimental facilities for advanced light water-cooled small modular reactors (SMRs). Successful operation of these facilities can significantly reduce upfront reactor development and demonstration costs and time to deployment.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2025

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires the performance assessment (PA) (Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office [DOE-ID] 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE-ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b) for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site shall be maintained to evaluate changes that could affect the performance, design, and operating basis for the facility (DOE Manual 435.1-1 Change 3, “Radioactive Waste Management Manual,” Section IV.P. [4]). The RHLLW Disposal Facility became operational in September 2018 after the completion of operational readiness activities required by DOE Order 425.1D, “Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities,” and the issuance of the startup authorization by the Startup Approval Authority (Boston 2018). The first waste disposals at the RHLLW Disposal Facility began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility closure design, or institutional controls. This FY 2025 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the PA, CA, operating disposal authorization statement (ODAS) (ODAS 2018), ODAS technical-basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis (RWMB) (INL 2024a) to meet DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” performance objectives for the RHLLW Disposal Facility. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA at the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of DOE Order 435.1.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Monitoring Plan for the Idaho National Laboratory Remote Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility

This monitoring plan for Idaho National Laboratory’s Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility was developed to meet the requirements for monitoring low-level waste disposal facilities according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” and the guidance provided in the associated technical standard “Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation” (DOE-STD-5002-2017). The purpose of this monitoring plan is to document a monitoring strategy that includes (1) compliance monitoring activities to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards/limits and (2) performance monitoring to build confidence the facility is performing as demonstrated in the facility performance assessment (PA) (DOE-ID 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b). The de minimus impact to the aquifer predicted by the PA suggests that aquifer compliance monitoring should be augmented with performance monitoring of the drainage course materials and sedimentary interbeds in the vadose zone beneath the facility to provide a more effective means of identifying performance deviations. The monitoring approach delineated in this document was informed by the systems evaluation of natural and engineered facility features presented in the PA, an assessment of aquifer baseline conditions (INL 2017d), the dose analysis conducted in support of the PA and CA, and monitoring data collected during the first four years of facility operations (baseline monitoring phase) (INL 2023b). This plan provides monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, and sampling methods; recommendations for data evaluation; and a description of the monitoring plan implementation. Collected data will be used to demonstrate facility compliance and to identify conditions that are not consistent with the key assumptions made by the PA and CA.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Saltstone Waste Characterization Analysis - Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Waste Stream (Q4 CY2020)

The Saltstone Production and Disposal Facility is designed and permitted by the state of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) to treat and dispose of low-level radioactive and hazardous liquid waste (salt solution) remaining from the processing of radioactive material at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Low-level waste (LEW) aqueous streams from the Effluent Treatment Project (ETP) and decontaminated solutions from the Tank Closure Cesium Removal Unit (TCCR) and the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) are stored in Tank 50 until the LEW can be transferred to the Saltstone Facility for treatment and disposal. In the past, decontaminated solution from the Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) was stored in Tank 50 until the LEW could be transferred to the Saltstone Facility for treatment and disposal. MCU is currently in a suspended operations state. LEW that meets the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) can be transferred, stored, and treated in the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF) for subsequent disposal as saltstone grout in the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Sampling will be conducted as new waste streams are identified for treatment and disposal at the Saltstone Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF) and Z-Area Industrial Solid Waste Landfill (ISWLF), Facility ID# 025500-1603, General Condition B.9 or every six years in accordance with South Carolina (SC) Regulation 61-107.19 Parti C, “Solid Waste Management: Solid Waste Landfills and Structural Fill - General Requirements.”

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

April 2025 Semiannual Composite Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Decontaminated Salt Solution (DSS) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Results

The aqueous waste from the Salt Waste Processing Facility is sampled semiannually for transfers to the Saltstone Production Facility. Salt solution is treated at the Saltstone Production Facility and disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility. Per request of customer, X-TTR-Z-00027, Revision 0, one Saltstone Disposal Facility waste form was prepared at Savannah River National Laboratory using the Salt Waste Processing Facility Decontaminated Salt Solution and Z-area premix material for the April 2025 semiannual Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure sample. The sample contained 60:40 (by weight) of slag and fly ash (referred to as the “Cement-Free grout sample”). Results from the technical report support Task 2: ‘Grout Leaching Analyses’ of the Task Technical Request prepared by Savannah River Mission Completion. At 43 days cured, the Saltstone sample was collected and shipped to a certified laboratory for analysis using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. The April 2025 semiannual Cement-Free grout sample met the South Carolina Code of Regulations for Hazardous Waste Management Regulations 61-79.261.24 and 61-79.268.48 requirements for a non-hazardous waste form with respect to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals and Underlying Hazardous Constituents, and met the Saltstone Production Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria that was in effect at the time of the sample collection at the Salt Waste Processing Facility.

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

Update to the Performance Assessment for the Savannah River Site Saltstone Disposal Facility - 20124

In 2019, Savannah River Remediation developed a revision to the performance assessment (PA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office (SR) for the near-surface disposal of low-level waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Soluble waste from SRS Tank Farms undergoes salt processing to remove cesium and other high activity constituents. The low-activity decontaminated salt solution (DSS) is then immobilized by mixing it into a cementitious waste form known as saltstone. After mixing, the saltstone is poured into leak-tight concrete vaults, known as saltstone disposal units (SDUs), where the waste form cures. By the time of facility closure, the SDF is expected to consist of 15 SDUs with a combined capacity of 1.06 E+09 L (280 Mgal) of cured saltstone. The facility operates under a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE and a permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Since the start of operations in 1990, the SDF has received almost 6.7 E+07 L (18 Mgal) of DSS, resulting in the safe disposal of 2.7 E+16 Bq (7.3 E+05 Ci) of activity. Due to the radioactive decay of short-lived contaminants, the total remaining activity in the disposed waste is estimated to be approximately 1.4 E+16 Bq (3.9 E+05 Ci), as of September 2018. The Disposal Authorization Statement requires a demonstration that the system of engineered and natural features of the disposal facility will limit releases from the facility and be protective of human health and the environment for at least the next 1,000 years. The long-term performance of the facility was evaluated under the requirements of the DoE's Radioactive Waste Management Manual (US DOE Manual 435.1-1). Simulations were performed to demonstrate that the disposal facility would meet performance objectives specified in the manual. The evaluation was based on numerical models that simulate the releases of contaminants from the saltstone waste form. Contaminants were transported through groundwater and air pathways to points of assessment to evaluate compliance. In addition, the potential consequences of an inadvertent human intrusion (IHI) were also evaluated. In accordance with the guidance and recommendations in US DoE's technical standard for DAS, deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to demonstrate the SDF system, which includes the engineered cover system, the SDUs, the waste form, and the natural features of the site, provides a reasonable expectation that saltstone disposal will meet performance objectives. Post-closure doses to future members of the public (MOP) were evaluated; dose estimates from the air pathway were well below the 1.0 E-04 Sv/yr (10 mrem/yr) performance objective within 1,000 years, and the calculated doses to the MOP from all exposure pathways, including the groundwater and air pathways, were well below the 2.5 E-04 Sv/yr (25 mrem/yr) performance objective within 1,000 years. Doses following an assumed intrusion event within the facility boundaries were well below the IHI performance objectives, where the acute IHI dose was below the acute IHI dose performance objective of 5.0 E-03 Sv (500 mrem) and the chronic IHI dose was below the chronic IHI dose performance objective of 1.0 E-03 Sv/yr (100 mrem/yr) within 1,000 years. (author)

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

On Temperature Limits for the Outer Surface of a Container in a Disposal Facility - 20313

The temperature in a disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste (HLRW) is an issue for safety. When the recommencement of the search for and selection of a site for a disposal facility for HLRW in Germany was stipulated by the Site Selection Act (StandAG 2017) in 2017, a precautionary temperature limit of 100 deg. C on the outer surface of the containers with high-level radioactive waste in the disposal facility section was set. This precautionary temperature limit shall be applied in preliminary safety analyses provided that the 'maximum physically possible temperatures' in the respective host rocks have not yet been determined due to pending research. Therefore, this issue is addressed and discussed in this paper, contributing to 'pending research' by a review of the literature. This paper briefly discusses a few examples of thermohydraulic, mechanical, chemical and biological processes in a disposal facility, because temperature limits are derived based on safety impacts regarding THMCB-processes. The temperature-dependent processes have been extracted from databases for features, events and processes (FEP-databases). Furthermore, it is discussed if the feasibility to retrieve and recover HLRW is hampered at high temperatures. A design temperature concerning single components of a disposal facility for the preservation of their features can be derived when a safety concept is established. However, the interactions of all relevant processes in a disposal concept must be considered to determine a specific temperature limit for the outer surface of the containers. Therefore, applicable temperature limits may vary for particular safety and disposal concepts in the following host rocks: rock salt, clay stone and crystalline rock. Technical solutions for retrieval and design options for recovery seem to be viable up to temperatures of 200 deg. C with different, sometimes severe, downsides according to expert judgement. Temperature limits regarding the outer surface of the containers can be derived specifically for each safety concept and design of the disposal facility in a host rock. General temperature limits without reference to specific safety concepts or the particular design of the disposal facility may narrow down the possibilities for optimisation of the disposal facility and could adversely affect the site selection process in finding the best suitable site. (authors)

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

Facility Location Optimization Model for COVID-19 Resources

In response to anticipated resource shortfalls related to the treatment and testing of COVID-19, many communities are planning to build additional facilities to increase capacity. These facilities include field hospitals, testing centers, mobile manufacturing units, and distribution centers. In many cases, these facilities are intended to be temporary and are designed to meet an immediate need. When deciding where to place new facilities many factors need to be considered, including the feasibility of potential locations, existing resource availability, anticipated demand, and accessibility between patients and the new facility. In this project, a facility location optimization model was developed to integrate these key pieces of information to help decision makers identify the best place, or places, to build a facility to meet anticipated resource demands. The facility location optimization model uses the location of existing resources and the anticipated resource demand at each location to minimize the distance a patient must travel to get to the resource they need. The optimization formulation is presented below. The model was designed to operate at the county scale, where patients are grouped per county. This assumption can be modified to integrate other scales or include individual patients.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Safeguards Considerations for Coated Particle Fuel Fabrication Facilities

This study aims to identify where existing fuel fabrication safeguards are limited in application to coated particle fuel fabrication facilities; perform a review of techniques that may be appropriate to address these limitations; and identify where further study is required. The purpose is to ensure the necessary technology and safeguards developments are established to facilitate safeguards-by-design for coated particle fuel fabrication facilities, analogous to the research and development (R&D) efforts in the advanced reactor space, including those requiring coated particle fuels and progress to higher technology readiness levels. Finally, this study will also help meet high priority objectives set forth by the IAEA in establishing safeguards R&D precedence and measurement/procedural standards at emerging fuel fabrication facilities. To achieve these objectives, the report is formatted to (1) distill relevant background information on fuel fabrication of oxide and coated particle fuels; (2) provide an overview of the fuel fabrication techniques for a reference oxide fuel fabrication facility and two selected TRISO fuel fabrication facilities; (3) develop facility models of safeguards approaches for the reference facility and the two TRISO facilities; and (4) identify any observed technology needs or gaps from this analysis.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Report on Year-4 of Water NSTF Matrix Testing: Facility Maintenance and Accident Testing

Under support from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Office of Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART), a large-scale test facility has been constructed at Argonne National Laboratory to generate NQA-1 qualified validation data for passive decay heat removal systems in advanced reactors. The Natural convection Shutdown heat removal Test Facility (NSTF) reflects key features of a ½ scale, water-based, Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS) and is intended to study the behavior, bound performance, and ultimately guide design decisions for passive decay heat removal systems for advanced reactors. In addition to the experimental activities detailed in this report, a supportive computational modeling effort is on-going which has been demonstrated to significantly strengthen the experimental program while also improving accuracy of the computer models. Together these create a mutually beneficial relationship integral to meeting the overall program objective of examining the heat removal performance of the RCCS concept. This report serves as a summary of maintenance and experimental activities during the program’s fourth year of water-based operation. A planned six-month maintenance period began in August 2021, during which major inspections, repairs, cleaning, and installation of new instrumentation and data acquisition hardware were conducted. Most significantly, two heaters that faulted during Year-3 were repaired, allowing the facility to resume use of the full heated section area and full range of available electric power. The remainder of the year consisted of eight months of test operations, during which the facility logged 211 hours of active heating across one bake-out (following the maintenance period) and seven matrix tests; five classifieds as Accepted per NQA-1, one as Trending, and one as Failed. Testing began by performing two repeat cases to confirm expected facility response and behavior during both single- and two-phase flow conditions, ensuring no changes were introduced during the maintenance period that might have altered the thermal-hydraulic characteristics of the facility. In continuation of the power parametric series initiated in previous years, a high-power test case was then performed examining heat removal performance at a decay heat load equivalent to 2.4 MWt, full-scale, a level exceeding maximum design targets. Additional testing then introduced various blockage scenarios along the network piping, examining the effects of partial and complete blockages of the flow paths on the system behavior and heat removal performance. A study of static boiling tests directed at understanding the geysering two-phase instability was also conducted. The loop was filled only to the bottom of the tank outlet, creating an open loop configuration that prevents any natural circulation flow from occurring, and the heaters were powered on until the facility reached saturation conditions. Following, a series of quasi-steady-state conditions were introduced by adjusting the inventory level in the adiabatic chimney piping at decreasingly lower elevations above the heated region. A strong correlation of geysering characteristics and loop level was observed, with flow and temperature excursions decreasing in intensity, but increasing in frequency, as the fill were reduced to lower elevations along the chimney piping. Once the level fell very low in the chimney, at points near the top of the heated section, the system reached a stable state of continuous boiling without any occurrence of geysering eruptions. A final significant testing accomplishment this year was successful completion of an “accident scenario” test, whose operating conditions were based on a prototypic decay heat curve provided by Framatome and scaled for the NSTF. This test began by establishing steady-state, single-phase “normal operation” conditions, before simulating an accident trip where the availability of active cooling systems was lost. Loop temperatures gradually increased until reaching saturation and subsequent two-phase boiling flow. Over the course of an extended operational period along the defined decay heat curve, steam boil-off caused gradual but continued depletion of liquid inventory until reaching a critically low level causing flow stagnation and cessation of natural circulation heat removal. At this point, after nearly 72 hours of continuous operation, a cold refill was performed to replenish the system inventory and allow the facility to re-establish closed loop natural circulation flow and return to a safe operational state.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Historic Architectural Resource Survey of the Dosimetry Applications Research (DOSAR) Facility in the 7700 Area of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In May 2022, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., completed a historic architectural resource survey of buildings associated with the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The laboratory is one of three Department of Energy facilities located on the Oak Ridge Reservation in Roane and Anderson Counties, Tennessee. The Dosimetry Applications Research Facility is located approximately 2 mi southeast of the main Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus. The survey included Buildings 7709, 7710, and 7712, which date to the 1960s. An additional DOSAR building (Building 7735) dates to the late 1980s and was not surveyed since it is outside the period of significance. The survey was conducted at the request of UT-Battelle, LLC, on behalf of the Department of Energy. As stipulated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Department of Energy is required to identify any properties under its jurisdiction that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In order to identify historic properties at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in 2017–2018 Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., conducted a survey of the main campus as well as outlying facilities, publishing the findings in a 2018 report entitled Oak Ridge National Laboratory Historic Architectural Resource Survey. At the time of the 2017–2018 survey, buildings associated with the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility were not accessible for security reasons and the current report serves as an addendum to the 2018 report. In addition, the current survey incorporates information included in a documentation report on Building 7709 completed in 2019. The properties included in the current survey were also evaluated for their collective potential as a historic district. The identification of archaeological properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is beyond the scope of this report. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., recommends that none of the buildings surveyed for the current report are individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the collective of buildings represents a facility that made notable contributions to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s scientific research endeavors from the 1960s to the 1980s, specifically in the field of Health Physics. The buildings and their associated features have also maintained their integrity of setting, materials, design, location, and association. Therefore, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., proposes the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility Historic District, which is recommended eligible for listing under Criterion A. The three buildings addressed in the current survey (Buildings 7709, 7710, and 7712) are recommended eligible as contributing resources of the historic district. The district boundary is scribed to incorporate the environs of these three facilities, as well as additional relevant features.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emission Points and Sampling Systems

Battelle–Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development laboratories in Washington State. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contracts to Battelle at Richland facilities on both the DOE Hanford Site and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Richland campus. These facilities have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The PNNL contract with DOE also includes operations at the PNNL-Sequim campus in Sequim, where there is also the potential for radionuclide air emissions. This document is a periodic update that describes current PNNL facility emission units and sampling systems. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP [40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart H]) requires an assessment of all emission units that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. Emission units are registered with the State of Washington. Potential emissions from emission units are assessed annually by PNNL staff. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based on the potential to-emit dose criteria, a graded approach to facility-identified potential impact categories, and regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission unit system performance, operation, and design information. For sampled emission units, the building, exhaust unit, control technologies, and sample extraction details are provided. Additionally, applicable configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are included. For non-sampled emission units, emission estimation and radionuclide source details are provided. Site-wide permits for the lowest potential impact category are described. Deregistered/transitioned emission unit details are also provided as necessary for at least 5 years post-closure/transition. Currently, five emission units are sampled continuously for particulate radionuclides at PNNL managed facilities on the PNNL-Richland campus (3 of the 5) and on the Hanford Site (2 of the 5). Four of these units have sampling systems that comply with the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1–2011 standard for sampling from stacks and ducts of nuclear facilities, and the fifth is grandfathered and compliant with the older ANSI N13.1–1969 standard. In addition, the PNNL-managed Hanford Site 325 Building EP 325-01-S stack is sampled continuously for emissions of tritium. No emissions sampling is required for the single licensed emission unit on the PNNL-Sequim campus.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗