Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “high- level waste”

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.

851 records · Page 48
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Large Volume Airborne Contamination Monitoring To Support Nuclear Processes' Deactivation and Decommissioning

Current D and D operations at Hanford have demonstrated a flaw in the current state of the art capability of defining airborne contamination boundaries - Airborne particulate emissions of Pu-239 from CM2H operations on the Hanford Pu Finishing Plant were detected well beyond areas controlled for airborne Pu, putting numerous workers at risk for radiological assimilations - Current air samplers and CAM systems were surveying insufficient volumes of air to accurately predict where respiratory protection was required - Hanford is located in a high radon environment, making air monitoring for alpha emitting actinides challenging in high alpha radon induced backgrounds. - Inexpensive HEPA based home and industrial air purifiers filter significantly higher volumes of air than commercially available continuous-air monitoring (CAM) systems. - Inexpensive models capable of filtered air volumes exceeding 1000 times that of a CAM. - Detector system can be built to detect x-rays generated from actinide decay. - Branching ratios of x-rays are 4 orders of magnitude more intense from Plutonium decay than its gamma emissions. - Detector system can be a low resolution systems, as x-ray region of interest is not terribly congested. - Detection systems evaluated will be designed based on slabs of NaI or pixelated NaI or CsI panels. - Simple graphical user interface software will be developed to operate the detection system. - Concept is to deploy some of these air-purifying systems in nonradiological areas around SRNL to confirm radon can be rejected with confidence. - Generate some filters contaminated with plutonium via electroplated Pu or lab generated simulated particles. - then deploy units in known airborne radiological environments to establish systems ability to accurately measure actinide based hot particles Lab analyses will follow up the system analyses to ensure hot particles were correctly identified. Analysis by Scintillation: - Application of scintillation media to the surface of the filters is being explored. - Evaluating slabs of ZnS(Ag), application of powdered ZnS(Cu) and spray on Perkin Elmer Enhance. - Scintillation events would then be digitized with a digital camera and quantified. - Comparing against sensitivity of a PMT or SiPD readout. - Currently evaluating a Thorlabs 8 Megapixel Monochrome Scientific CCD Camera, hermetically sealed cooled package with a wide angle lens. - Wide angle lens allows complete view of HEPA filter from 7 inches away. - Images taken of glow in the dark paint, as well as plutonium-induced fluorescence. - Plutonium was flamed mounted on a 1 inch diameter stainless steel planchet, covered with a layer of mylar and a section of scintillating ZnS obtained from Eljon. - Currently working on reducing signal-to-noise levels to boost sensitivity. - Dark box to hold contaminated or electroplated source covered filters under fabrication. Analysis by x-ray Spectroscopy: - Branching ratios for x-ray emissions from Plutonium isotopes are orders of magnitude more intense than gamma-ray emissions. - The nuclear databases are incomplete on the branching ratios of some of the isotopes. - Evaluating some custom built SrI2 x-ray spectrometers vs a conventional windowed NaI detector. - SrI2 detectors are carbon-composite-windowed 51 mm x 51 mm. - MCNP calculations to establish self absorbance of filter media on 17 keV x-ray. Radon Rejection: - Activated charcoal pre-filter acts as a Radon trap. - Adding a time lapse feature to camera to aid in radon rejection. SRS Plutonium Fuel Form D and D Operations: Currently deploying air sampler to D and D operation of Pu-238 facility at SRS to generate some field samples to analyze.

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

Zero-Valent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier to Remediate Volatile Organic Compounds in Groundwater - 20209

The US DOE-SRS, the US EPA, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control determined it was appropriate to perform a non-time critical removal action at the P-Area Groundwater Operable Unit at the SRS to reduce the mass and downgradient transport of trichloroethylene in the P-Area groundwater plume. Contaminated groundwater discharges to a nearby stream, Steel Creek, within the SRS boundaries, resulting in trichloroethylene concentrations above the maximum contaminant level. Impact to surface water is limited in areal extent and supported by recently collected characterization data. The P-Area Groundwater Operable Unit encompasses the groundwater beneath an industrial area within SRS, P Area, where the P-Reactor once operated. The boundaries of the P-Area Groundwater Operable Unit extend northwest to Steel Creek, northeast toward PAR Pond, and southeast to Meyers Branch. Groundwater in the Upper Three Runs Aquifer of the P-Area Groundwater Operable Unit has been impacted by reactor and facility operations between 1954 and 1991, including tritium and volatile organic compounds. The P-Area surface units contributing to groundwater contamination were remediated as part of the P-Area Operable Unit in 2011. The P-Reactor closure is one of the first of its kind in the DOE Complex and is one of only a few full-sized production reactors in the US to undergo completion of final closure activities. The nature and extent of groundwater contamination was determined using a variety of investigative approaches such as groundwater monitoring wells, direct-push technology, and surface water samples. Groundwater contamination associated with trichloroethylene is primarily exhibited in a narrow plume that extends from the source area at P-Reactor and west to Steel Creek. Maximum contaminant level exceedances in groundwater occur over an area of ∼6.9 hectares for trichloroethylene with concentrations as high as 7.7 milligrams per liter. To the west of the P-Area facility area, the trichloroethylene groundwater plume is controlled by a buried geologic feature, assumed to be an old stream bed, that further narrows the groundwater plume in what has been designated as the 'neck area.' This narrowing of the groundwater plume provides an ideal location for a treatment barrier. The non-time critical removal action alternative chosen is to install a zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier within the neck area of the trichloroethylene groundwater plume, perpendicular to groundwater flow direction. This technology will provide a treatment barrier that will reduce trichloroethylene groundwater concentrations by 90% and has an anticipated useful life of at least 25 years. A pre-design investigation was performed in the neck area to confirm site lithology, hydrogeology, geochemistry, and extent of trichloroethylene contamination prior to a final design. A treatability study, conducted as part of the pre-design investigation, indicated that the subsurface and groundwater in the PArea Groundwater Operable Unit is compatible with the zero-valent iron and will not lead to excessive buildup from mineralization/precipitation or biofouling. Probabilistic modeling was conducted using field and laboratory data to determine the expected performance of the zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier. The model simulations indicated that a 3.81-centimeter thick barrier would provide greater than 90% reduction of trichloroethylene groundwater concentration. The final design of the zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier is a barrier that will extend 80.5 linear meters in a 'zigzag' orientation to best transect the trichloroethylene plume and account for varying groundwater flow. The barrier will be installed from 13.7 meters below ground surface to 41.1 meters below ground surface for 65.8 linear meters and from 13.7 meters below ground surface to 36.6 meters below ground surface for 14.6 linear meters, the base of which is 'keyed' into a low permeability zone. The barrier is designed to a thickness of 10.2 centimeters, which was determined to reduce the trichloroethylene groundwater concentrations by greater than 90% with a safety factor of 2.67. A total of approximately 689 metric tons of zero-valent iron will be injected through 22 injection wells spaced 3.66 meters apart, using guar to suspend the zero-valent iron. Zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier construction will be monitored through 23 installed resistivity receivers offset 7.32 meters from the zerovalent iron permeable reactive barrier. The zero-valent iron will be energized with a low-voltage 100 Hertz signal during injection and will be monitored using the resistivity receivers to ensure complete coalescence of the zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier. The zero-valent iron was sized to have a hydraulic conductivity greater than the natural subsurface, thus promoting groundwater flow through the barrier. As contaminated groundwater contacts the zero-valent iron, volatile organic compounds, including trichloroethylene, are immediately degraded to harmless compounds such as ethylene. The performance of the zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier will be monitored using three upgradient monitoring well clusters, six downgradient monitoring well clusters, and four in-wall monitoring wells. The in-wall monitoring wells will indicate immediate reduction of trichloroethylene mass in the groundwater and allow analyses of the zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier health. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Liquid Salt Combined-Cycle Pilot Plant Design

The work described in this report is responsive to the Office of Fossil Energy program ‘Energy Storage for Fossil Power Generation.’ This Phase I report has been prepared by Pintail Power LLC, with support from Nexant ECA, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Southern Company Services as a deliverable for the U.S. Department of Energy for NETL Award DE-FE-00320016. The Liquid Salt Combined Cycle™ (LSCC™) technology provides large-scale energy storage integrated with Fossil Electric Generating Units (FEGUs) to meet critical needs in the energy transition by providing: • the lowest cost large-scale storage for time-shifting of renewable energy, • superior fuel efficiency to reduce GHGs from dispatchable resources, • flexible capacity and ramping to balance variability of wind and solar resources, • essential grid stability services to assure reliability of a low-carbon grid. The LSCC approach: • employs equipment that has already been proven in utility service, • uses safe, non-toxic, non-degrading, perpetual-life storage medium, • leverages and repurposes existing FEGU assets, • expands the value stack of energy storage to reduce market, financing, and commodity risks. Pintail Power has developed the LSCC technology to meet the need for reliable, efficient, and cost-effective integration of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) into a low-carbon electric grid by coupling proven thermal energy storage with proven gas turbines, steam turbines, and heat transfer equipment. This novel approach is intended to address the key issues facing the grid and operators of renewable and fossil generating units including: • Overgeneration and curtailment of renewables, • Need for fast ramping dispatchable resources, • Improved efficiency and flexibility of fossil units, • Additional peaking capacity to support electrification of transportation and heating, • Provision of reliability services to support high penetration of VRE, especially synchronous inertia and fast frequency response. A Technology Readiness assessment by EPRI confirmed that LSCC technology consists of commercially proven hardware used in industrial and utility applications. Although the novel LSCC approach has not yet been demonstrated as a complete system, interfaces between major components have been conservatively specified. A Phase III pilot is planned to demonstrate equipment integration and operation. The patented innovation is removal of the evaporator section from the exhaust heat recovery system, with the evaporation performed by stored energy in a separate steam generator. This arrangement couples renewable and fossil power generation via long-duration energy storage to deliver cost, performance, and operational synergies, including superior charging and discharging flexibility, reduced fuel consumption and lower CO 2 emissions compared to conventional Combined Cycle Power Plants, and low-cost, large-scale energy storage. The LSCC technology is composed of proven equipment integrated with gas turbine exhaust heat in a novel system. During charging, electric heaters raise the salt temperature as it flows from the Cold Salt Tank to the Hot Salt Tank. During discharging, hot salt produces steam from feedwater that is heated with gas turbine exhaust, which also superheats steam to drive a steam turbine. LSCC technology can be added to any combustion-turbine to integrate renewable energy, provide needed grid services, and increase the value of fossil electric generating units based on the technology’s following attributes: • Long-duration storage enables time-shifting of VRE to avoid curtailment and impairment of renewable assets. • Long storage duration combined with fast-charging capability increases arbitrage opportunities by storing more energy when the price is low and discharging more hours when the price is high. • Long storage duration allows resource adequacy to be supplied across multiple days to increase reliability and reduce risk. • The stored energy reduces fuel heat rate and GHG emissions, and increases merit, so the LSCC dispatches earlier and longer to increase the plant’s capacity factor and asset value. • The stored energy enables pre-heating and startup of the steam cycle, without operating the gas turbine, to enable fast startup and ramping when dispatched for discharge. • The steam turbine can operate without the gas turbine so it can provide valuable synchronous inertia during charging without consuming fuel. • Fast frequency response and regulation services can be provided during charging using solid-state heater and pump controls to vary the charge power input in response to grid signals. • The LSCC system can be configured for resilience including black start, islanded/micro-grid operation, and even self-recharging of storage using either gas turbine power or gas turbine exhaust heat. The commercialization plan is to add LSCC technology to existing simple cycle gas turbine power plants with the 50MW GE LM6000 aero-derivative gas turbine as the reference design basis. A Techno-economic assessment of the reference design evaluated the benefits (Levelized Avoided Cost of Energy) and costs (Levelized Cost of Energy). The plant definition included all major systems and budgetary vendor quotes. Pintail Power and NexantECA developed the overall cost estimate for the LSCC plant up to the total plant cost level, following the DOE-NETL cost estimate guidelines at AACE Class 3 (-20%/+30%). This includes the equipment cost, bulk material, direct and indirect labor costs to arrive at the bare erected cost. Engineering costs are factored from the BEC and added to it to arrive at the EPC cost. Process and project contingencies were then factored from the EPC cost and rolled-up to yield the total plant cost of $\$$184 million for 1746 MWh of discharge electricity. • At $\$$105/kWh, the reference plant costs less than any of the Energy Storage Systems evaluated by PNNL in 2020 for the Energy Storage Grand Challenge. Operations and Maintenance cost estimates were scaled from combined cycle practice, assuming that the LSCC unit was co-located with and sharing some labor expense with other units, to arrive at $\$$2.2 million per year. Plant economics were evaluated using prices from the ERCOT Day-Ahead Market for calendar year 2019 (excluding the market disruptions from the COVID pandemic and the February 2020 deep freeze event). Assuming economic dispatch in the ERCOT Day-Ahead market, the reference plant capacity factor would have discharged for 2777 hours at 91.9 MW, a 31.66% capacity factor, with a marginal cost of $\$$25.59/MWh, and a LACE of $\$$82.41/MWh. Fixed charges were calculated according to EIA guidelines to arrive at an LCOE of $\$$83.48. The benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.99 suggests that the reference plant would have been cost-effective and competitive in the market. EPRI interviewed selected utilities to gauge the need for, applicability of and interest in the LSCC system. Several utilities are currently managing increased load growth along with the inclusion of increasing levels of renewable generation, putting pressure on conventional generation by requiring increased turndown requirements and ultimately lower capacity factors. All of the utilities interviewed have CO 2 reduction targets in the 2030-2050 timeframe that will severely limit the participation of fossil generation and require better utilization of carbon free generation. While there is limited opportunity for storage in the current markets, the utilities interviewed stated that there will be a substantial need for long duration energy storage in the future given the expected trends. Utilizing an energy storage system will generally be preferred over new gas capacity in some cases, with the capabilities of the LSCC system being a potential option for retrofit to existing simple cycle gas turbine units, allowing them to deliver greater participation in the market with lower carbon intensity. A technology gap assessment and technology maturation plan identified a pilot-scale demonstration as the final step before commercialization. Key gaps to be addressed during the Phase II FEED (Front-End Engineering Design) are component selection and design, commissioning procedures, and operational procedures and the control system for LSCC charging and discharging. The project team has been expanded to include Wood Group PLC as EPC. The proposed Phase II work leads to a pilot-scale engineering demonstration (TRL 6) to be conducted at Southern Company’s Plant Rowan, where the prototype system will perform “all the functions that will be required of the operational system.” The proposed pilot will facilitate commercialization (TRL-9) by scale-up to utility-scale systems integrated with peaking GTs or directly to facility scale systems using industrial GTs. The conceptual design for the pilot plant focuses on the novel integration aspects of LSCC technology. A slipstream of gas turbine exhaust will feed a waste heat recovery unit coupled to a molten salt steam generator heated by stored energy. The pilot is intended to demonstrate all key operating modes of the LSCC technology during charging, discharging and standby. The pilot equipment will be approximately one-seventh scale of the LM6000 commercial target and is expected to have commercial off-ramp potential for facility-scale applications.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

Double-Shell Tank Primary Bottom Visual Inspection Results - 20025

A pressing need for the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program at Hanford is of the ability to inspect the bottom of the tanks. Though the DSTs' annulus spaces (the space between the internal and external tank walls) have been inspected visually since 1992 and with Ultrasonic Testing (UT) since 1996, inspections of the tank bottoms have been able to be conducted due to limitations of available technology, omitting about 40 percent of the tank surface below the maximum fill level from routine inspection. Visual inspections of the tank annulus have been conducted up to five times in some DSTs and portions of the annulus space for all of the DSTs has been inspected twice with UT. This region includes the walls of the primary tank and secondary liner along with accessible portions of the secondary liner bottom. Due to this lack of technology, the degradation of the primary tank bottom in Tank AY-102 was undetected until the tank leaked into its annulus space, confirmed in 2012. Since that time, WRPS has been working with the nondestructive examination community and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, to evaluate potential technologies to conduct these challenging remote inspections. Recent work has included the development, testing, and deployment of several remote visual inspection technologies to observe the condition of the primary tank bottom of the DSTs by leveraging air distribution slots in the refractory pad on which it rests. Robotic solutions to conduct this inspection were developed with a detailed understanding of the physical configuration and operational logistics. Understanding and subsequent communication of these details to vendors within the robotics and nondestructive examination community was a critical component to the successful production of these new tools. Throughout the FY16-FY18 years, vendors from nondestructive examination community were solicited for ideas to meet the tank bottom inspection challenge. Two tank bottom visual inspection solutions were then pursued to meet that challenge. Both tools were successfully deployed at Tank AP-107, and provided valuable visuals, never before obtained from the under tank environment of a double-shell tank. While there are minor opportunities for improvement identified with each system, general outcomes were overwhelmingly positive. Both systems were successfully able to navigate the refractory air slot pattern from the outer edge to the tank center and record video footage. The micro-crawler provided high quality and very stable footage through the air slot pattern, but took longer to deploy into the slots and traverse through them than the alternative system. The push-pull tethered camera was able to navigate all seven of its target air slots in a matter of a few hours, which included deployment, movement between slot entrances, and complete removal of the system from the annulus environment. Through these air slots, new information was gained about the tank bottom and refractory pad condition of tank AP-107, AP-106, AP-108, and AN-102. While some debris was noted in the air slots, including sand, chipped refractory, and construction materials, the refractory was found to be structurally stable and adequately supporting the primary tank bottom through the full diameter of the tank. Primary tank bottom steel exterior was found to be in good condition, free of ongoing or aggressive corrosion conditions. Looking toward the future, robotic access to and visual inspection of refractory air slots and the primary tank bottom steel has now proven viable. Incorporating periodic air slot inspections as a regular practice within the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program is the next step, allowing trending of any changes in condition. As ultrasonic testing infrastructure was leveraged to complete the initial system deployments described in this report, it makes sense to adopt that same strategy for ongoing periodic examinations and deploy these primary tank bottom inspection tools alongside ultrasonic testing operations. Development of visual inspection tools to evaluate the primary tank bottom region of the double-shell tanks was planned as the first stage of inspection. Continued development of volumetric sensors and incorporation of these inspection tools into Hanford's ongoing Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program are the next steps, seeking to continuously expand understanding of asset integrity and remaining useful life. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

EVA Swab Kit: Tools and Techniques for Collecting Aseptic Samples from Crewed Space Missions

Introduction: When we send humans to search for life on other planets, we'll need to know what we brought with us versus what may already be there. To ensure our crewed spacecraft meet planetary protection requirements—and to protect our science from human contamination—we'll need to assess and verify whether micro-organisms may be leaking/venting from our spacesuits. This requires collecting samples under Extravehicular Activity (EVA) conditions. Detailed, systematic research on forward contamination from robotic spacecraft has been steadily progressing since the Viking missions, but systematic studies of contamination from space suits has not been conducted in many years. The modern EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suit used by NASA is designed to leak at rates as high as 100 cc/min. Before humans land on Mars there is a critical need to understand the types and quantities of microbes that could be introduced via space suits. The Human Forward Contamination Assessment team at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSC) has developed a prototype EVA swab tool [1,2,3,4] designed for use in space to sample cleaned and uncleaned space suits to determine the present day microbial load and eventually the rate of leakage. The ability to assess microbial leakage early in advanced space suit and life support system design cycles will help avoid costly hardware redesign later. Test Objectives: The primary objective of EMU testing was to characterize the type of micro-organisms typically found on or near selected suit pressure joints under suit differential pressure conditions. Most human-borne microbes can fit through a 0.5 to 1.0 µm gap. Knowing which joints are more likely to leak will inform hardware design decisions. Knowing which types of micro-organisms may leak from EVA suits provides a basis for subsequent studies to characterize the viability of those organisms under destination conditions, as well as how far they might spread through natural or human-influenced processes. That data, in turn, will inform exploration mission operations and hardware design. The secondary objective of testing was to evaluate the interface between a fully suited test subject and the EVA swab tool at vacuum. Bulky EVA suits can restrict movement and limit visibility through the helmet visor. Fully suited testing is important for identifying tool design issues prior to flight. At exploration destinations, such as Mars, suited crew may be required to periodically sample their suits as part of an environmental monitoring protocol. Suit Microbial Sampling Results: This report details results of microbial swabs collected from current flight suit configurations worn by crew members assigned to upcoming ISS expedition missions as well as swabs collected from prototype suits intended for use on the Orion spacecraft. These tests were intended to characterize the types of contaminants found on flight suits under current, typical handling conditions. No attempt was made to change suit handling procedures, provide additional sterilization, or to limit typical potential contaminant sources. Using culture based techniques, we cultivated 235 CFU (colony forming units) comprised of 26 bacterial species and one fungal species on the outside of the suits. The fungal species and 14 of the bacterial species were unique to the suit surfaces and were not detected in any of the background samples collected within the chambers. We sequenced 755,434 ribosomal fragments on all of the suit surfaces from swab samples. 557,016 of these sequences represent DNA that survived at least 4 hours at vacuum. These sequences formed 2,464 OTU's (Operational Taxonomic Units, 97% similarity) showing low diversity in the samples. The most abundant sequences that survived vacuum belong to the genera Staphyloccocus, Ralstona, Bacillus and Rhodobacter all of which are common to the human microbiome. [5] See Danko et al., (2021) for more complete details of these first analyses. Further analysis of EVA suit materials with respect to the efficacy of various cleaning protocols and engineered containment solutions is planned to inform suit design for NASA’s Artemis Moon to Mars program crew testing. Swab Tool Function Results: The kit was demonstrated for fit and function in suited subject vacuum tests to determine how well the tool worked as an aseptic microbial sampling device as well as to identify any design elements that could be upgraded for EVA task specific improvement. It was found that sample acquisition efficacy could be enhanced by redesign of the sample canister to end-effector interface. Several modifications of the sample caddy assemblies to optimize EVA safety and functionality were also identified. Consequently, fabrication of the redesigned sample canister to end-effector assembly interfaces and and the sample caddy assemblies are required. Fabrication of sixteen flight sample canister assemblies (8 per each of two EVA Swab Kits) and two sample caddy assemblies are in process to be followed by hardware testing and certification to produce two flight-certified EVA Swab Kits for transport to ISS no earlier than summer of 2022. Sampling Strategy: The International Space Station is an ideal testbed for systematic studies of contamination from crewed vehicles since it has been continuously occupied for 20 years and exposed to non-terrestrial conditions. We will sample the exterior of the ISS during EVA using a purpose-built swab tool capable of maintaining sterility while undergoing temperature changes from -151 to +121°C under hard vacuum. Prior to each EVA, the project team will work with ISS mission managers to identify precise sampling locations, which will vary by EVA based on the translation paths and worksites scheduled for that particular EVA. Ideally, translation path handrails and areas near ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System) external vent openings on a spacecraft would be assessed. There are currently more than a dozen ECLSS external vents on the ISS. Some are connected to systems that vent waste products, while others are intended to equalize cabin pressure. As EVA opportunity allows, microbial samples from any of these external vents would provide a valuable data point, though some will be more useful than others. Four criteria have been identified to help prioritize sampling sites near vents: • EVA Accessibility: To minimize cost, it is desired to piggy-back onto a planned EVA. Therefore, the sampling location must be readily accessible by an EVA crew • Type of Vented Products: Vent products that have been in direct contact with crew, such as cabin air, are more likely to contain microorganisms than vent products associated with isolated systems, such as experiment module combustion products. • Mass of Vented Products: Higher-flow vents are more likely to contain detectible levels of microbial contaminants than lower-flow vents. • Local Environment: Sample locations with relatively benign local conditions, such as warm surfaces shielded from direct ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, may be more likely to support microbial growth than locations with harsher local environmental conditions. Because EVA accessibility is the most important criteria, the proposal team worked with an astronaut and flight controllers using the Dynamic Onboard Ubiquitous Graphics (DOUG) tool. The DOUG virtual environment allows an operator to “fly” around the current ISS vehicle configuration to assess EVA translation paths, attach points, and keep-out zones. While analysis on station or rapid return to Earth would be preferable, samples collected from the exterior of the ISS have already been exposed to temperature variations between -157 and +121 °C as well as hard vacuum. Therefore, they should be fairly stable and robust. We hypothesize that samples collected from the ISS exterior could be stored for up to 6 months at -80°C without degradation. Sample canisters will be returned to Earth while frozen at -80°C for analysis, and sterilized canisters can be re-flown back to ISS to support additional sampling opportunities Relevance to NASA Exploration Objectives: These data will allow us to identify new or improved methods, technologies, and procedures for spacecraft sterilization and leakage mitigation to minimize the amount of contamination introduced to the environment by human explorers. This work is funded by NASA research grant: NNH18ZDA001N-PPR References: [1] Bell, M.S. et al. (2015) LPS XLVI, Abst. #1832 [2] Rucker et al. (2018) 42nd COSPAR (PPP.3) [3] Bell, M.S. et al. (2019) Mars Extant Life Conference, Abst. #5096.[4] Bell, M.S. et al., (2020) 43rd COSPAR (BO.2).[5] Danko D, et.al.,(2021)Front.Microbiol.12:608478.

Mary Suzanne Bell↗