Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “report, 2022”

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 19 records

Lunar LTE Studies DRATS 2022 Report

In October 2022, the Lunar LTE Studies (LunarLiTES) team from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glenn Research Center (GRC) conducted a series of communications field test measurements through the NASA Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) campaign held near Flagstaff, Arizona. The objective of the NASA DRATS outings are to provide analog mission testing of candidate technologies for space exploration, especially those technologies applicable to human exploration of extraterrestrial rocky bodies. These activities are performed at locations with similarities to extraterrestrial conditions, such as the dry, volcanic landscape north of Flagstaff. This report describes the surface-to-surface communications testing performed by LunarLiTES as part of the 2022 NASA DRATS experiments. The objectives of this testing were to collect data for the development and refinement of radio frequency (RF) propagation models and emulation techniques, as well as to evaluate the application of terrestrial cellular communication technologies to lunar surface exploration.

lunar communication↗

Astrophysics Biennial Technology Report 2022

APD undertakes space missions to explore the nature of the universe at its largest scales, its earliest moments, and its most extreme conditions; missions that study how galaxies and stars formed and evolved to shape the universe we see today; and missions that seek out and characterize planets and planetary systems orbiting other stars. Since such ambitious missions require technologies that exceed today's state of the art, APD established the SAT program to mature key technologies that enable these future missions, from demonstrated feasibility (i.e., Technology Readiness Level, or TRL, of 3), to the point where they can be incorporated into NASA flight missions (i.e., TRL 6). APD set up three science-themed Programs, COR, ExEP, and PCOS, to address three fundamental questions: “How did we get here?” (COR), “Are we alone?” (ExEP), and “How does the universe work?” (PCOS). The COR, ExEP, and PCOS Program Offices support their respective Programs, including managing SAT and other midTRL-directed projects.

PCOS COR ExEP ABTR↗

2022 Research & Technology Report

The 2022 Research and Technology Annual Report represents what is hopefully the “new normal” for portfolio execution. The portfolio took advantage of the best features of the virtual work environment with collaborations across the nation without any geographical constraints. This allowed key partnerships between NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and other NASA centers, other government agencies, industry, and academia. Also, because there were no longer any constraints on laboratory and test capabilities, we were able to make significant progress with hands-on technology development, fabrication and testing that is critical to validating the efficacy of advanced technology.

J. W. Dankanich↗

Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2022 Test Report

The primary purpose of the 2022 Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS 22) analog mission field test was to provide data and recommendations regarding how pressurized rover (PR) design, cabin configuration, driving modes, timeline constraints, and mission operations can be acceptably implemented to support future Artemis missions that include a PR. The goal of these evaluations was to provide first order feedback and data on design concepts currently being traded as options for future pressurized rover flight prototypes. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) may provide a PR for future Artemis missions. One of the primary objectives of D-RATS 2022 was to share with the JAXA PR team the processes and protocols by which NASA has learned to successfully evaluate rover concepts through integrated HITL evaluations over the past 20+ years, so that JAXA could apply any applicable lessons learned to their PR design, development, testing, and evaluation.

analog↗

Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2022 Quicklook Report

This report summarizes the Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) 2022 analog tests. BACKGROUND - Artemis Challenges – NASA’s concept of operations (ConOps) for the Artemis mission architecture brings new challenges for human exploration of the lunar surface, including: (1) Low-angle, natural lighting at lunar poles; and (2) Exploration sites that challenge communication with Earth. - International Partner Involvement – NASA is working with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to scope mission & functional requirements for an Artemis Pressurized Rover (PR), which JAXA may provide. - Charter – HQ Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate (ESDMD) Moon to Mars Architecture Development Office (M2MADO) Strategy and Architectures (SA) chartered the Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) test team to investigate Artemis architectural questions related to pressurized rover ConOps. - Rationale – to inform the NASA/JAXA pressurized rover study-agreement. PLAN - Objectives – Analog tests conducted in October 2022 by the D-RATS team addressed three high-level objectives: 1. Investigate pressurized rover (PR) ConOps and capabilities for Artemis exploration 2. Integrate with JAXA engineers & astronauts and incorporate JAXA PR design elements into testing. 3. Re-establish analog field-testing skills & capabilities with rovers to investigate Artemis architecture ConOps. - Secondary Objectives – Work with other groups to leverage D-RATS field test for additional objectives. 4. Work with the Public Affairs Office (PAO) to perform D-RATS public outreach activities. 5. Coordinate with the Human Physiology Performance Protection & Operations (H-3PO) team to facilitate in-field evaluation of human health and performance (HHP) objectives. 6. Share D-RATS field-site and assets with Lunar LTE Studies (Lunar LiTES) team, to aid their study of the use of 4G/LTE communication protocols and devices for astronauts and robotic nodes on the lunar surface. - Team – Fully integrated test team comprised of members from 5 NASA centers, JAXA, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) - Location – Black Point Lava Flow, ~40 miles north of Flagstaff, AZ HIGH-LEVEL OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHED - Investigated Pressurized Rover ConOps & Capabilities for Artemis Exploration (Objective 1) - Completed testing with 4 crew pairs, each spending 3 days and 2 nights in the rover conducting Artemis PR dayin-the-life activities (2 JAXA astronauts, 2 JAXA engineers, 1 NASA astronaut, 3 NASA engineers). - Collected detailed objective & subjective data supporting 10 strategic questions related to Artemis PR operations. - Field geologists present in field observed rover operations & EVAs. - Science team in Houston MCC communicated directly with crew. - Demonstrated crew-led and MCC-led PR teleoperation use cases during EVAs. - Integrated with JAXA Engineers & Astronauts and Incorporated JAXA PR Design Elements into Testing (Objective 2) - NASA & JAXA engineers, flight controllers, scientists, roboticists, and astronauts directly participated in and/or observed testing both in field and in MCC-Houston. - Incorporated JAXA PR design elements into both integrated and standalone testing at JSC and in the field. - Re-established Analog Field-Testing Skills & Capabilities with Rovers to Investigate Artemis Architecture ConOps (Objective 3) - Multiple teams successfully worked to establish and manage field-test base camp, monitor and maintain the rover, and plan and execute 2 weeks of consecutive field-testing with little to no breaks between crews. TEST OUTCOMES - Results will inform Artemis architecture ConOps & capabilities related to pressurized rover operations (see sections 2 for more details) - Summary and team detailed reports will be posted on the D-RATS 2022 wiki

Analog↗

2022 Annual Report: Culture-Based Environmental Microbiology Monitoring of Crop-based Space Food Systems (Veggie Monitoring)

Crewmembers live and work in a closed environment that is monitored to ensure their health and safety. Quarterly monitoring of the microorganisms in the International Space Station (ISS) environment supports crew safety and contributes to a large set of environmental microbial data from the air, surface, and water samples that are collected. This study leverages quarterly operational Environmental Health System (EHS) sampling by collecting additional microbial samples from the surface of the station’s Veggie plant production system. Longer exploration missions may require spaceflight-based systems for growth of plants, and this investigation is expected to provide additional data to help establish requirements to protect these systems, plants, and crew, mitigating adverse microbial exposure.

Tanner Hamilton↗

Space Biology Beyond LEO Instrumentation & Science Series Science Working Group 2022 Annual Report

Humans are poised to explore deep space: the realm of space beyond Earth's orbit. NASA will soon send humans back to the Moon with the Artemis program, and is developing programs to support crewed missions to Mars. Human exploration of such new environments demands fundamental research that can provide the knowledge necessary to ensure the safety of explorers and aid in the development of a sustainable presence in space. Accordingly, the Agency's Moon to Mars objectives1 include three goals in the area of Human Biological Sciences (HBS-1, -2, -3), with the aim to "Advance understanding of how biology responds to the environments of the Moon, Mars, and deep space to advance fundamental knowledge, support safe, productive human space missions and reduce risks for future exploration." Advancing this understanding is a task that is both complex-- comprising diverse organisms, processes, and methods-- and difficult-- because the very aspects of deep space that we strive to understand are the aspects that make it hard to conduct research in that environment. This report of the Beyond LEO Instrumentation & Science Series Science Working Group (BLISS-SWG) represents input from a group of scientists from diverse disciplines within the space biology research and engineering community on the nature of the science and technology that can be used to achieve those aims.

Space Biology↗

Near-Term Policy Considerations for Lunar Missions

Near-Term Policy Considerations for Lunar Missions. Therese Jones1, Gabriel Swiney,1 and Katie McBrayer,2 1NASA HQ, 300 Hidden Figures Way SW, Washington, D.C. 20546, 2NASA Langley Re-search Center, 1 NASA Drive, Hampton, VA, 23666. (Contact: therese.m.jones@nasa.gov) Introduction: More than two dozen lunar missions are planned prior to the Artemis III crewed lunar landing, from Russian, Chinese, Indian, Japanese and U.S. government orbiters and landers to Commercial Lunar Payload Ser-vices missions to commercial crewed flybys. While the Artemis Accords have established an international consortium of countries seeking to mitigate interference between operations on the Moon, a number of unaddressed policy issues remain that may be critical to lunar operations. In this lightning talk, we build upon NASA’s Of-fice of Technology, Policy, and Strategy’s Sep-tember 2022 Report “Lunar Landing and Oper-ations Policy Analysis” [1], to give an overview of policy questions that remain open, including: whether to prioritize certain landing locations or avoid certain scientifically valuable locations, design and coordination of safety zones, notifi-cation of other actors of potential dangers posed by landing, whether to avoid placing equipment in operationally valuable locations, and end-of-life disposal. We will also discuss how these policy implications could apply to planned missions.. References: [1] Swiney, G., and Hernandez, A. Lunar Landing and Operations Policy Analy-sis, NASA Office of Technology, Policy, and Strategy, September 30, 2022 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa-otps-lunar-landing-and-operations-policy-analysis-final-report_2.pdf

Therese Jones↗

Earth Observations into Action: Systemic Integration of Earth Observation Applications into National Risk Reduction Decision Structures

As stated in the United Nations Global Assessment Report 2022 Concept Note, decision makers everywhere need data and statistics that are accurate, timely, sufficiently disaggregated, relevant, accessible, and easy to use. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate scalable and replicable methods to advance and integrate the use of Earth observation, specifically ongoing efforts within the Group on Earth Observations Work Programme and the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites Work Plan, to support risk-informed decision making, based on documented national and subnational needs and requirements.

earth observations↗

Land Use Control Implementation Plan

Land Use Control (LUC) Inspections Report 2021 for John F. Kennedy Space Center(KSC), Florida. This letter report documents the quarterly LUC inspections the KSC Remediation Group conducts at sites with approved LUC Implementation Plans (LUCIPs). Land Use Control Inspections Report 2022 for John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL. This Land Use Control Implementation Plan (LUCIP) has been prepared to inform current and potential future users of Wilson Corners of institutional controls that have been implemented at the site. Although there are no current unacceptable risks to human health or the environment associated with Wilson Corners, institutional land use controls (LUCs) are necessary to prohibit the use of groundwater. Controls will include periodic inspection, condition certification and agency notification.

Christopher D Adkison↗

Composition Reanalyses at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office

Scientific Assessments of Ozone Depletion 2018 and 2022 report the recovery of Antarctic ozone, consistent with diminishing concentrations of halogens in the stratosphere. Both the size and the depth of the springtime ozone holes exhibit downward trends, particularly in September. Superimposed on the recovery trend are significant year-to-year fluctuations arising from dynamical variability potentially influenced by climate forcing and volcanic eruptions. Since 2018 the Antarctic stratosphere has experienced a wild parade of austral spring seasons with a sudden stratospheric warming and exceptionally high ozone in 2019 followed by large and long-lasting ozone holes in the following years, prompting questions about the speed and detectability of Antarctic ozone recovery and its potential connections to human-induced climate change. From the Australian New Years’ wildfires of 2020 to volcanic aerosols to the unprecedented injection of water vapor by the Hunga volcanic eruption, recent scientific literature on the subject investigates many factors that may or may not have contributed to this remarkable interannual variability. This presentation summarizes dynamical influences on springtime Antarctic stratospheric ozone in recent years and discusses these results in the context of long-term trends. In particular, this work seeks to isolate dynamical and chemical contributions to the Antarctic springs since 2019 using a consistent methodological framework. Our analysis uses constituent and meteorological fields from the MERRA-2 Stratospheric Composition Reanalysis of Aura MLS (M2-SCREAM) in combination with data from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment – Fourier Transform Spectrometer and from ozone sondes. Using the high spatial and temporal resolution of M2-SCREAM, we analyze the daily evolution of southern polar ozone, HCl, N2O, and water vapor in dynamical flow-following coordinates relative to the location, size, and shape of the polar vortex. For vertically integrated stratospheric ozone we emphasize the importance of the wave-influenced geometry of the polar vortex and its vertical alignment. The ultimate purpose of this project is to contribute to the quantification of the speed of the Antarctic ozone recovery and associated uncertainties.

Krzysztof Wargan↗

How Unusual Were the 2020-2023 Ozone Holes?

The Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022 reports the recovery of Antarctic ozone, particularly evident in September, consistent with diminishing concentrations of halogens in the stratosphere. Superimposed on the recovery trend are significant year-to-year fluctuations arising from dynamical variability and potentially influenced by climate forcing and volcanic eruptions. Since 2018 the Antarctic stratosphere has experienced large swings in Antarctic springtime ozone metrics with a sudden stratospheric warming and exceptionally high ozone in 2019 followed by large and long-lasting ozone holes in the following years, prompting questions about the speed and detectability of Antarctic ozone recovery and its potential connections to human-induced climate change.

Krzysztof Wargan↗

General Services Administration Reclamation Yard Solid Waste Management Unit 010: 2022 Groundwater Monitoring Report Kennedy Space Center, Florida

This report presents a summary of the groundwater monitoring activities that occurred in September and October 2022 at General Services Administration Reclamation Yard, Solid Waste Management Unit 010, located at the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. The site is monitored under KSC’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. This approach also meets the requirements of Chapter 62-780, Florida Administrative Code. For the purposes of this report, two separate plumes, known as the Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB)/Volatile Organic Aromatic (VOA) Plume and the Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Plume, were identified for this site. The contaminants of concern (COCs) for the PCB/VOA Plume consist of PCBs, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, and breakdown products of 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. The COCs for the Chlorinated VOC Plume were tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride. Groundwater monitoring for VOCs in the Chlorinated VOC Plume area was discontinued following the December 2021 annual monitoring event. Annual groundwater monitoring for underground injection control (UIC) parameters continues for both the PCB/VOA Plume and the Chlorinated VOC Plume areas. The activities presented in this report include one field event: September and October 2022, which includes sitewide semi-annual water level measurements of 55 monitoring wells, redevelopment of all monitoring wells listed in the sampling plan, and groundwater sampling of 28 monitoring wells. The sampling and analysis demonstrated that the PCB/VOA plume is not expanding and is significantly reduced compared to before a 2018 source removal interim measure. Recommendations are made for the 2023 groundwater monitoring program.

groundwater↗

Contractors Road Heavy Equipment Area (SWMU 055) 2022 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report

This document presents a summary of activities completed at the Contractors Road Heavy Equipment (CRHE) Area, located at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida, from June through December 2022. The activities conducted at the CRHE Area include: - Annual groundwater sampling activities associated with sitewide plume monitoring and Underground Injection Control (UIC) monitoring in the former bioremediation Interim Measures (IM) Hot Spot 1 (HS1) area; - Direct push technology (DPT) groundwater investigation; - Semiannual vapor intrusion (VI) evaluation activities. This facility is designated Solid Waste Management Unit (SWMU) Number 055 (SWMU 055) under KSC’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action program. HydroGeoLogic, Inc. (HGL) prepared this report for the National Aeronautics and Space NASA) under contract number 80KSC019F0096/80KSC019D0012, Technical Directive-03. An Advance Data Package (ADP) presentation of the elements of this report received Team (KSCRT) agreement at the April 5, 2023, KSCRT meeting. The chlorinated volatile organic compound plume appears to be stable vertically and horizontally. Additional DPT groundwater sampling will be completed to support a remedial alternatives evaluation for potential means to expedite groundwater cleanup. There are per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances in site groundwater, and assessment is planned in the future. Sub-slab soil gas monitoring results do not indicate any concerns with indoor vapor intrusion. Based on the 2022 annual groundwater sampling results, it is recommended that annual sampling continue to alternate with the wet and dry season, with the next sampling event planned for December 2023.

groundwater↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

Launch Complex 34, SWMU Cc054 2021 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ) and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 12 operation of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), the results of performance monitoring direct-push technology (DPT) sampling and monitoring well sampling conducted in the DSZ, and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. Site-wide biennial LTM sampling was not conducted during this reporting period and is scheduled to be conducted in December 2022. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the DSZ and deep dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to re-characterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 12 of the HCS was from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 12, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2022, a total of 285,712,801 gallons of groundwater containing 84,933 pounds of VOCs have been removed by the HCS. Influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 12,000 µg/L (March 2022). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in December 2021 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 ft bls, at 5 foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations at depths ranging from 8 to 98 ft bls. An overall increasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which may be due to several recovery wells that were turned off during the AS Pilot Study in the DSZ that operated from July 2021 to February 2022 (documented separately from this report). The maximum TCE concentration in 2021 was 15,400,000 µg/L in the 58 ft bls depth interval at DPT597 (previous maximum result in 2020 was 1,690,000 at 48 ft bls at DPT596). During the 2021 DPT event, the overall majority of TCE contamination was identified in the 58 ft bls interval (below Layer 4), where in the previous year the majority of mass was observed in Layer 4. This trend appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, monitoring well samples were collected from deep wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) to verify vertical delineation. All monitoring well results were non-detect or below cleanup levels, with exception of one well (IW0162, screened 105 to 115 ft bls, which is below the existing recovery well capture zone) where TCE was identified above cleanup target levels. The HS 6 AS system remained operational during the reporting period covered under this report. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells, and expanded in 2019 with an additional 140 AS wells. Quarterly performance monitoring was reduced to semi-annual prior to this operational period. The results of the HS 6 system operation and semi-annual performance monitoring are summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2021 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2- dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride) are generally decreasing and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM is meeting objectives. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 12 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with the recommendations of the 2020 LC34 (Year 11) Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Report for DNAPL Source Zone, Site Wide LongTerm Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparging System PMR (NASA, 2021c). Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

trichloroethene↗

Former Central Heat Plant SWMU 045 Year 2 Air Sparge System Performance Monitoring Report

This Air Sparge (AS) Performance Monitoring (PM) Report (PMR) presents Year 2 operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) activities, PM results, and monitoring well installations supporting the AS Interim Measure (IM) at the Former Central Heat Plant (CHP) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. CHP has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit 045 under the KSC Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. An AS IM was installed at CHP between 2019 and 2021, which included the installation of an AS system to treat a chlorinated solvent groundwater plume. Contaminants of concern (COCs) identified at CHP for the AS IM include tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), and vinyl chloride (VC). The completed AS system includes a network of 267 AS wells, which treat approximately 1.3 acres of contaminated groundwater. “Hot” compressor technology is used to treat the source zone, while a “cold” compressor is used to treat two hot spot (HS) areas (HS1 and HS2) and the high concentration plume (HCP). The AS system began operation in June-July 2021 and this document includes Year 2 of operation. The overall runtimes for the AS system for the Year 2 reporting period (October 2022 to September 2023) were approximately 69 percent for the cold trailer and 71 percent for the hot trailer. Air samples and vapor screening results collected during the reporting period showed concentrations less than applicable human health and air emissions permit criteria. Groundwater performance monitoring results show that AS treatment continues to be effective in reducing COC concentrations at CHP. At the shallow interval, COC concentrations were all non-detect, less than, or met their respective State of Florida Groundwater Cleanup Target Levels (GCTLs) at the end of Year 2 in September 2023. In the deep interval, 10 of the 15 PM wells detected COCs greater than their respective GCTLs, with two of these wells also exceeding the Natural Attenuation Default Concentration for VC. Based on Year 2 OM&M and PM results, continued operation of the AS system is required to meet the IM objective. It is therefore recommended to continue with AS IM operations at CHP with the following plan for Year 3.

Kevin Alex Murphy↗