Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “RIVERS”

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 1,297 records · Page 72
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reactive Transport Modeling of Anthropogenic Carbon Mineralization in Stacked Columbia River Basalt Reservoirs

Numerical simulation of CO2 storage in basalts and related reactive lithologies requires modeling complex, coupled hydrologic and chemical processes, including multi-phase flow and transport, partitioning of CO2 into the aqueous phase, and chemical interactions with aqueous fluids and rock minerals. We conducted reactive transport simulations of the Wallula pilot-scale CO2 injection into the flow tops of the Grande Ronde Basalt using our PNNL STOMP-CO2 simulator with the ECKEChem reactive module. Our mineralization simulation of the ~1,000 tons of injected CO2 into the interflow zones was based on the hydrologic transport model we previously developed. For this work, the simulations considered geochemical reactions involving the basalt components, precipitates, formation brine, and injected CO2. In our benchmark case, carbonate minerals precipitated, resulting in ~20% of the CO2 being mineralized in 10 years. Increasing the reaction rate of a single primary mineral phase (clinopyroxene) by an order of magnitude resulted in a carbon mineralization reaction extent of ~90% over the same time interval. Based on these initial sensitivity analysis results, it is clear that a thorough understanding of primary mineral dissolution rates is required for accurately predicting long-term fate and transport of injected CO2 into basalt formations. Our reactive transport numerical simulations will be key components of commercial-scale CO2 storage operation permitting, de-risking, and optimization in mafic and ultramafic reservoirs.

Cao, Ruoshi↗
DOE OSTI2021

Local-Distance Seismic Event Relocation and Relative Magnitude Estimation, Applications to Mining Related Seismicity in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming

Recent efforts to characterize small ( M w < 3 ) seismic events at local distances have become more important because of the increased observation of human-triggered and induced seismicity and the need to advance nuclear explosion monitoring capabilities. The signals generated by low-magnitude seismic sources necessitate the use of nearby short-period observations, which are sensitive to local geological heterogeneity. Local to near-regional distance ( < 300 km ) surface and shear waves can dominate short-period observations from small, shallow seismic sources. In this work, we utilize these observations to estimate precise, relative locations and magnitudes of ~ 700 industrial mining events in Wyoming, using nearly 360,000 observations. The precise, relative location estimates (with formal location uncertainty estimates of less than 1 km) collapse a diffuse collection of mining events into discrete clusters associated with individual blasting operations. We also invert the cross-correlation amplitudes to estimate precise, relative moment magnitude estimates, which help validate and identify disparities in the event sizes reported by regional network catalogs. Joint use of multiple phases allows for the inclusion of more seismic events due to the increase in the number of observations. In some cases, using a single phase allowed us to relocate only 50% of the original reported seismic events within a cluster. Combining shear- and surface-wave phases increased the number of events to above 90% of the original events, allowing us to characterize a broader range of event sizes, source to station distances, and event distributions. This analysis takes a step toward making a fuller characterization of small industrial seismic events observed at local distances.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Total Mercury Analysis Comparison: Deployment of Analytical Method for the Savannah River Site Liquid Waste System

A direct mercury analyzer (DMA; EPA 7473) and Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (CVAAS; EPA 245.2) have been used to analyze samples high in methylmercury and other forms of mercury with oxidation states of Hg o (elemental), Hg 1+ (mercurous), and/or Hg 2+ (mercuric) to determine analytical data equivalency for total mercury. The DMA instrument has been determined to be the preferred method based on both simulated and radioactive sample testing due to analytical results and ease of use in a radiological hood. SRNL made a number of modifications to the DMA instrument and analysis method to limit the amount of time personnel are required to work in a radiological environment. Equivalency is based on comparative statistical evaluation of the results from: spike solutions/simulants, Tank 50 samples, Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) samples, and Modular Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction Unit (MCU) solvent samples. SRNL performed a cross-comparison of results using CVAAS, DMA, and Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS), as well as independent analysis from an offsite laboratory (using cold vapor sample processing with atomic fluorescence detection, EPA 1631). All data were within the combined uncertainty (2σ ± 20%) of the CVAAS and DMA methods

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Determining Cs-137 Background Body Burdens for Wild Pigs at Savannah River Site

In Gaines and Novak, an effective method for determining the background 137 Cs body burden for the white-tailed deer population on the SRS was developed, using data collected during public hunts combined with gamma overflight data to determine the areas contaminated by site activities. However, a background 137 Cs body burden for the wild pigs present on the SRS has not been developed to date. In this work, we applied the Gaines and Novak methods to determine the 137 Cs background concentration in wild pigs. The determination of a site-specific home range for wild pigs on SRS with establishing background hunt compartments for calculating the background body burdens of 137 Cs resulted in an upper bound concentration in wild pigs on SRS of 1.97 pCi/g. This value bounds 95% of the possible 137 Cs contamination value for wild pigs from the background compartments with 95% confidence. Therefore, it is recommended that 1.97 pCi/g be used in the SRS Hunter Dose Tracking System as the background 137 Cs concentration for wild pigs on SRS. This concentration should be decay corrected from the year 2014. It is also recommended that this assessment of background concentrations in SRS wild pigs (and whitetailed deer) be performed at least every five years.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Quantitative Determination of Total Cesium in Savannah River Site (SRS) Tank Waste by Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscropy

Utilization of the significant and unique wavelength dynamic range (165 to 1100 nm) available on the Leeman Prodigy Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-ES) allows for quantification of cesium using the emission line 894.347 nm without the potential of Barium interference in nuclear waste samples. Samples are added to a Sodium Peroxide Fusion and Lithium Carbonate buffer in 2% nitric acid solution to increase sensitivity of the easily ionizable (<6 eV) cesium for quantitation to 5 pbb. Through direct comparison of analytical data results, the method is proven to be complementary to the Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) analysis (LOQ 100 ppt) in support of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Waste Mission.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Representing the Unrepresented Impact of River Ice on Hydrology, Biogeochemistry, Vegetation, and Geomorphology: A Hybrid Physics-Machine Learning Approach

Focal areas include: Predictive modeling through the use of AI techniques and AI-derived model components; the use of AI and other tools to design a prediction system composed of a hierarchy of models (e.g., AI driven model/component/parameterization selection). Insight gleaned from complex data (both observed and simulated) using AI, big data analytics, and other advanced methods, including explainable AI and physics- or knowledge-guided AI.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Using Machine Learning to Develop a Predictive Understanding of the Impacts of Extreme Water Cycle Perturbations on River Water Quality

This whitepaper addresses to two focal areas – (3) Insight gleaned from complex data using Artificial Intelligence (AI), and other advanced techniques (primary), and (2) Predictive modeling through the use of AI techniques and AI-derived model components (secondary). This topic is directly relevant to four DOE Earth and Environmental Systems Science Division Grand Challenges: integrated water cycle, biogeochemistry, drivers and responses in the Earth system, and data-model integration.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (H NMR) of Glycolate in Real Waste: Developing and Testing Analytical Methods for the Savannah River Site Liquid Waste System

In preparation for implementing the NG acid flowsheet for the SRS LWS, analytical methods for determining glycolate at low concentration are desired to support system management and safety. Previous work documented that the IC method performed well for samples with low to moderate ionic strength. That work also included a scoping effort to determine if an alternate analytical strategy using H NMR would complement and extend the capabilities of the IC method. The H NMR scoping results indicated that the method had the potential to expand glycolate analysis in LWS samples to higher ionic strength tanks/solutions. The scope of this work is to develop innovative proton NMR techniques, including demonstrating ion exchange decontamination protocols needed for application of the technique to real waste samples. Part of radioactive waste processing at SRS uses formic acid to reduce oxidized (Hg 2+ ) to more volatile elemental Hg for steam striping, collecting, and disposal. Under acidic conditions found in the Chemical Processing Cell (CPC) at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), formic acid has a much higher hydrogen generation rate than an alternative reductant, glycolic acid. Thus, an NG acid flowsheet has been developed utilizing glycolic acid with the benefit of easing the need for headspace monitoring requirements for hydrogen and ammonia at DWPF. Low concentrations of glycolate are conservatively assumed to be in the recycle stream, which will collect in the Recycle Collection Tank (RCT). The DWPF recycle stream collected in the RCT has a distinct pathway to the LWS waste tanks that feed the 2H and 3H Evaporator. This route involves transfer of the DWPF recycle to Tank 22 in the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF) followed by transfer to the LWS tank farm/evaporators.

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

Savannah River National Laboratory Participation in the International Atomic Energy Agency CPC Interlaboratory Comparison Exercise 2

International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Analytical Services (IAEA-SGAS) oversees coordinating the second Controlled Potential Coulometry Quality Control Interlaboratory Comparison (CPC QC ILC) on behalf of the Nuclear Material Laboratory (NML). The purpose of the exercise is to: (1) verify the ability of participating laboratories to measure the Pu concentration in the sample solutions, and (2) estimate the method performance (repeatability and intermediate reproducibility). Sample shipping coordination was performed by IAEA-SGAS. The test sample is a plutonium nitrate solution (estimated molarity of 3-5 M), delivered in two PTFE screw-capped quartz ampoules. Each participating laboratory is to receive two ampoules. Each ampoule holds approximately 8 mL of solution containing approximately 10 mg Pu/g. The gross weights of the ampoules were provided. The test sample is assumed to have an iron content below the level of significance for the CPC. The isotopic composition of the plutonium test sample was provided; however, no analysis date was provided. In addition, IAEA-SGAS provided analytical instructions to participants. On September 20, 2022, SRNL received the samples sent by IAEA-SGAS.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2023

Performance Assessment for the E-Area Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at the Savannah River Site: Chapter 3

This chapter summarizes safety functions and features, events, and processes; conceptual models which apply to all DUs; property data packages; and modeling tools developed and implemented in this PA to analyze ELLWF performance. Conceptual models of GW flow and transport in the VZ, which are specific to type of DU, are presented in Chapter 4.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Performance Assessment for the E-Area Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at the Savannah River Site: Chapter 4

This chapter describes the GW flow and transport conceptual models in the VZ for both generic and special waste forms in STs, ETs, LAWV, ILV, and NRCDAs. The development and implementation of the GoldSim® system model for trenches is also introduced. The Trench System Model is used for sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification as reported in Chapter 6.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗