Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “criteria”

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 1,153 records · Page 64
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Integrated Solutions for Optimized Performance (ISOP) Final Technical Report

The goal of this project was to demonstrate technical feasibility of an integrated approach for deep energy retrofits by packaging innovative technologies with smart communicating controls that represent the next generation of energy efficiency. The integrated solutions for optimized performance (ISOP) package integrates (i) advanced lighting and plug load controls; (ii) intelligent daylight harvesting through automated self-powered shades and window films; (iii) advanced HVAC controls sequences (ASHRAE Guideline (GDL) 36); and (iv) fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) and continuous commissioning (CCx) using advanced analytics. These technologies address energy use across multiple building end uses that represent more than 60% of the energy consumption in all commercial buildings. The project was structured to be implemented over three budget periods: Budget Period 1 scope included site selection, project design, site-specific customization of technology packages, procurement of technologies, initiation of installation of technologies, the development of a measurement and verification plan and collection of pre-retrofit data collection. The first year go/no-go decision was based on securing host sites representing 250,000 sq. ft. of occupied operational spaces, savings analysis, technology procurement and initiation of installation. Budget Period 2 planned to complete technology installations and initiate data collection of post-retrofit performance data. The second year go/no-go was to be the completion of technology installations and commissioning, metering and data collecting to support the requirements laid out in site specific M&V plans. Budget Period 3 planned to collect and analyze post-retrofit performance data and provide data and reporting to support energy efficiency rebate programs. After the team completed activities planned for Budget Period 1, the team reached a Go/No-Go Decision Point. At that point, TRC recommended that DOE discontinue the project without prejudice due to challenges with securing demonstration sites to meet the full 250,000 sf of occupied operational spaces and DOE concurred. In Budget Period 1, the TRC team developed criteria to recruit and evaluate potential demonstration host sites. TRC worked with Princeton University, the project demonstration partner, to identify buildings on their campus as potential candidates for the demonstration. Following the selection of demonstration sites, the TRC team customized energy technology packages according to the needs and characteristics of each site. TRC defined technology specifications, identified vendors, and conducted analysis to estimate energy and cost savings potential. The project team then developed schedules for technology procurement processes and scheduled for installation at all selected demonstration sites. The project team worked with Princeton University and DOE to develop an approach to verify energy savings achieved through measurement and verification (M&V) 2.0 methods. Princeton University initiated open bids to procure the necessary materials and installation contractors. Bid results came back higher than estimates due to a couple of factors – lack of familiarity of the bidders with the proposed technologies and lack of local trained installers to execute the installation of these new measures. Due to the higher bids, projects no longer met the internal cost-effectiveness criteria used by Princeton to proceed with procurement of the full suite of technologies as proposed in ISOP. Princeton had already procured parts of the ISOP package as part of a campus-wide initiative for FDD and lighting retrofits, but with the higher costs for other ISOP components, Princeton could no longer commit to the full ISOP package on the selected sites. Based on this, the team reached the Go/No-Go decision point, where they decided not to proceed with the project. Princeton is separately installing portions of the ISOP package where they individually meet Princeton’s payback criteria but on a different schedule than would have been needed for the DOE ISOP project. The team has learned several lessons from project progress in the first budget period. The team will utilize these lessons in future projects, as should any team which proceeds with a project around the ISOP technology. The first lesson is that more information about the proposed sites is required earlier in the process (perhaps even at the proposal stage) in order to have a successful demonstration. Technical details not evident earlier in the process (such as the TLED limitations for ALCS) can derail project execution. The second lesson is that pricing of emerging technologies is highly variable due to lack of familiarity of local installers and distributor with the proposed technologies as well as alternate bids using products they were more familiar with, but that cost more than the ones proposed by TRC. Finally, the last major lesson is that the host site’s internal project criteria is of critical importance. Based on these higher installed costs and lack of an informed installer base for the products proposed for this project, the project does not meet Princeton’s simple payback goals of five years.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of the 3420 Building Filtered Exhaust Stack Sampling Probe Location: Stack Verification Following Fan and Air Blender Additions

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 3420 Building, which is part of the Physical Sciences Facility (PSF), houses radiological capabilities that results in the requirement that emissions monitoring must be conducted for potential radionuclides in the exhaust air discharge of this building. The air monitoring system is required to conform to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 61 (40 CFR 61) Subpart H, which in turns requires a sampling probe in the exhaust stream to conform to the criteria of American National Standards Institute / Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2011, Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stack and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities. To support the air emissions permit for the 3420 Building on the PNNL campus, stack testing that used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling as a surrogate stack and verification tests of velocity uniformity and flow angle on the retrofitted facility stack was performed. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2011 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%COV. Furthermore, no point in the sampling location may have a gaseous tracer concentration that varies from the mean concentration by more than 30%. Additionally, the flow angle at the sampling location must not be more than 20°. The CFD modeling of the stack, as reported by Recknagle et al. (2018) demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the probe location. The velocity uniformity and flow angle results from the 3420 stack verification tests, performed in October 2020, demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location. The measured velocity uniformity verification test result was 1.4%COV. This value is well within the uniformity criterion, which is that the velocity uniformity be =20%COV. Additionally, this value is well within the criterion that the actual stack measurement must be within 5% of the surrogate stack result of 2.1%COV when all four fans were operating. Additionally, the measured average flow angle at the 3420 stack monitor location was 15.5 degrees. Although this is higher than expected based on the CFD model, the result is =20 degrees, so the criterion is met. Based on these stack verification test results, the reconfigured 3420 Building filtered exhaust stack meets the qualification criteria given in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-2011 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the CFD report (Recknagle et al., 2018) may require additional tests and additional analysis to determine compliance with the standard.

3420 Building↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of ASCE 4-16 and AISC 43-18 (Draft) for use in the Risk-Informed Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems, and Components

This report describes the assessment of ASCE Standards 4-16 and 43-18 (Draft) for use in the Risk-Informed Performance-Based (RIPB) seismic design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) at nuclear power plants. This work was performed for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Regulatory Research (RES), to support potential endorsement of these industry standards for the design of nuclear power plants based on the RIPB approach. Currently, the NRC endorses a deterministic design approach for demonstrating the design adequacy of SSCs based on the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) and NRC Regulatory Guides. In the RIPB approach, the design criteria are developed to achieve a target performance goal, which is defined by the annual frequency of occurrence of the design basis earthquake (i.e., Seismic Design Category) and the acceptable level of structural performance (i.e., Limit State) for the SSCs. ASCE 4-16 provides methods for performing a seismic analysis of structures to obtain the seismic response of these structures (e.g., building displacements, accelerations, in-structure response spectra) which are used in the design of the SSCs. It also provides methods for performing seismic analysis of SSCs to determine the seismic demands (e.g. member forces and displacements) needed to design individual SSCs. ASCE 43-18 (Draft) provides the criteria for the seismic design of SSCs using the seismic demands developed in ASCE 4-16. The use of ASCE Standard 43-18 (Draft), along with ASCE 4-16, provides the criteria for the seismic design of the SSCs. ASCE 43-18 (DRAFT) relies on other consensus codes and standards such as ACI 349 for reinforced concrete, AISC/N690 for steel structures, ASME Section III for pressure-retaining mechanical components and Containments, and IEEE-344 for Class 1E equipment. The goal of this technical review was to assess the adequacy of the provisions in these standards for use by the NRC in developing regulatory guidance for design of SSCs in nuclear power plants, based on the RIPB approach. The research reported herein describes the basis for acceptance of the new standards and identifies areas where additional staff guidance is needed for the seismic design of SSCs at nuclear power plants. This technical review has determined that ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-18 (Draft) provide an appropriate framework for the seismic design of SSCs at nuclear power plants using a Risk-Informed Performance-Based approach. However, some of the criteria therein warrant exceptions, qualifications, and/or clarifications.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The WTP LAB stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the DV of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the maximum conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be = 20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be = 20% COV. Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stacks must agree within 5% COV. In general, these criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Some specific items for each scale model and full-scale stack comparison should be noted in assessing the validity of the verification tests. The LB-C2 scale model stacks were performed with single fan operations at then-minimum flow conditions. These conditions resulted in DV values that were too low to meet the DV range criterion, and therefore are unable to be used in qualifying single fan operations on the full-scale stack. However, the single fan operations demonstrated COV values for velocity uniformity as well as flow angles that were comparable to the dual-fan operations at high flows. Overall, the test conditions and test results were within the range of acceptable values based on current design flow rates. Single fan operations are expected to only occur infrequently for maintenance needs and is therefore not a planned operating condition at this time. The LB-S1 scale model stacks were performed at three fan combinations, and in each combination, at least one test was performed at the then-minimum flow conditions as well as at then-maximum flow conditions. While the then-minimum flow conditions result in a DV range that is lower than the verification test DV value, and therefore does not meet the criterion, these tests are un-necessary for the verification test acceptance. The normal and maximum flow conditions from the scale model stack tests meet the DV range criterion, and the velocity uniformity test results compare favorably with the full-scale stack results. The LB-S2 scale model stacks were performed at nominally the same maximum flow condition; however, the 6 DV value for Fan A operation was slightly lower than the full-scale stack test DV. The COV values from the scale model stacks were comparable between the Fan A and Fan B results, and the overall test conditions are within the range of acceptable values. The stack verification is therefore considered acceptable for both Fan A and Fan B operations. The verification tests were performed at flows that were appreciably higher than the design conditions, and further elevated flow rates would be beyond the range of acceptable DV. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stacks meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the scale model test reports (Glissmeyer, Flaherty, and Piepel (2001), Glissmeyer and Geeting (2013)) may require additional tests and additional analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

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

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

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

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

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

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding Of Effect, And Mitigation Documentation For Building 23-109, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-109, the Mercury Fire Station/Maintenance/Housing Office (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15235) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-109 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-109 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-109 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains some aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluation of Building 23-620, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory J-3 Office, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-620, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) J-3 Office Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15283) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-620 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-620 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-620 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

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

Financial Analysis of the High Flow Experiment conducted at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2023

The Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The 2016 record of decision (ROD) for the GCD long-term experimental and management plan (LTEMP) final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specified criteria for GCD monthly water releases, daily and hourly operating limits, and experimental releases. This report examines the financial implications of the high flow experiment (HFE) conducted at GCD during the spring of Water Year (WY) 2023 as required by the LTEMP HFE Protocol. This report is part of a series of reports that describe the financial costs of LTEMP experimental releases since the 2016 ROD was adopted in January 2017. Previous reports analyzed the impact of several past HFEs and Bug Flow Experiments. This report focuses on the HFE conducted in April 2023. For this experimental release, financial costs of approximately $1.33 million were incurred because the HFE required sustained water releases exceeding the power plant’s maximum turbine flow rate. In addition, during the experiment, operators were not allowed to shape GCD power production, either to follow Firm Electric Service (FES) customer day-ahead energy deliveries or to respond to market prices. This study identifies the main factors contributing to the HFE costs and examines the interdependencies among these factors. It applies an integrated set of tools to estimate Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) financial impacts by simulating GCD under two types of cases; namely, (1) a “With Experiment” case that mimics the operations that actually occurred and (2) a “Without Experiment” case that simulates operations under the assumption that the HFE did not occur. The “With Experiment” case mimics operations during the HFE and the entire month the HFE occurred. It complies with LTEMP hourly and daily operating criteria. The “Without Experiment” case assumes that the HFE did not occur. The monthly water release volume is assumed to be identical under both cases. The Colorado River Storage Project Python-based model (CRiSPPy) model was the main modeling tool used to simulate the dispatch of the GCD hydropower plant and associated water releases from Lake Powell. In the modeling process, the research team used extensive data sets and historical information on SLCA/IP power plant characteristics, hydrologic conditions, and WAPA’s power purchases and sales prices. In addition to estimating the financial impact of the HFE, the team used the CRiSPPy model to gain insights into the interplay among ROD operating criteria, exceptions made to criteria to accommodate the HFE, and WAPA operating practices.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling to Facilitate Qualification of Stack Sampling Probe Location

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling was used to help evaluate modifications to a radiological effluent stack and assist with establishing a stack sampling location that met the mixing criteria for qualification. Requirements for stack sampling location are listed in the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2021 standard. Modeling was performed to help develop a suitable design for increasing building ventilation for the radiological effluent stack. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that the coefficient of variation of velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%. Furthermore, no point in the sampling location may have a gaseous tracer concentration that varies from the mean concentration by more than 30%. Additionally, the flow angle at the sampling location must not be more than 20 degrees. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 standard allows for models (physical or computational) to be employed to perform the full suite of qualification tests, followed by a more limited set of verification tests on the actual stack to qualify the stack sampling location. Here, a series of computational model simulations were employed to evaluate the stack qualification criteria. Significant time and re-source savings are achieved using CFD modeling. CFD modeling demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the sample probe location. Verification tests were performed on the modified stack to measure the velocity uniformity and flow angle at the stack sampling location, and results demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location.

Air Monitoring↗
NASA NTRS1973

Identification and interpretation of tectonic features from ERTS-1 imagery

The author has identified the following significant results. Many criteria of active or recent fault movements are observable in the imagery. It was observed that where earthquake epicenter clusters occur, evidence of recent fault movements is generally observed. The opposite was not necessarily true as there are areas where evidence of recent faulting is observed, often along major known faults which are peculiarly devoid of significant seismicity. A tentative conclusion is that the seismicity pattern alone can often be a misleading criteria for potential earthquake hazards. The feasibility of recognizing geomorphic criteria of recent fault movement from ERTS-1 imagery suggests that ERTS imagery should be used to map potentially active faults and utilize this data to develop better criteria for the identification of areas prone to future earthquakes. An apparent correlation was observed between the distribution of mercury deposits in the California Coast Range Province and transverse fault zones trending west-northwest oblique to the trend of the San Andreas system. The significance of this correlation and the full extent of its implication on mercury exploration is under study.

Abdel-Gawad, M.↗
NASA NTRS1973

Fan and pump noise control

The development is described of improved, low noise level fan and pump concepts for the space shuttle. In addition, a set of noise design criteria for small fans and pumps was derived. The concepts and criteria were created by obtaining Apollo hardware test data to correlate and modify existing noise estimating procedures. A set of space shuttle selection criteria was used to determine preliminary fan and pump concepts. These concepts were tested and modified to obtain noise sources and characteristics which yield the design criteria and quiet, efficient space shuttle fan and pump concepts.

Misoda, J.↗
NASA NTRS1980

The design of low cost structures for extensive ground arrays

The development of conceptual designs of solar array support structures and their foundations including considerations of the use of concrete, steel, aluminum, or timber are reported. Some cost trends were examined by varying selected parameters to determine optimum configurations. Detailed civil/structural design criteria were developed. Using these criteria, eight detailed designs for support structures and foundations were developed and cost estimates were made. As a result of the study wind was identified as the major loading experienced by these low height structures, whose arrays are likely to extend over large tracts of land. Proper wind load estimating is considered essential to developing realistic structural designs and achieving minimum cost support structures. Wind tunnel testing of a conceptual array field was undertaken and some of the resulting wind design criteria are presented. The SPS rectenna system designs may be less sensitive to wind load estimates, but consistent design criteria remain important.

Franklin, H. A.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Advanced AFCS developments on the XV-15 tilt rotor research aircraft

The design criteria and control and handling qualities of the Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS), developed in the framework of the XV-15 tilt-rotor research aircraft, are evaluated, differentiating between the stability and control criteria. A technically aggressive SCAS control law was implemented, demonstrating that significant benefits accrue when stability criteria are separated from design criteria; the design analyses for application of the control law are presented, and the limit bandwidth for stabilization in hovering flight is shown to be defined by rotor or control lag functions. Flight tests of the aircraft resulted in a rating of 3 on the Cooper-Harper scale; a possibility of achieving a rating of 2 is expected if the system is applied to the yaw and heave control modes.

Churchill, G. B.↗
NASA NTRS1986

Remote sensing frequency sharing studies, tasks 1, 2, 5, and 6

The following tasks are discussed: adjacent and harmonic band analysis; analysis of impact of sensor resolution on interference; development of performance criteria, interference criteria, sharing criteria, and coordination criteria; and spectrum engineering for NASA microwave sensor projects.

Boyd, Douglas↗
NASA NTRS1987

Spin resistance evaluation of a light airplane

A brief history of stall/spin technology for light general aviation airplanes and proposed criteria to describe desirable characteristics of a spin-resistant airplane are presented. Flight tests of a representative light airplane to evaluate compliance with and usefulness of the criteria are presented. The baseline airplane configuration would not meet the spin resistance criteria. Tests of the airplane with a wing leading edge modification to enhance its spin resistance showed compliance with the proposed criteria.

Stough, H. Paul, III↗