skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) Requirements Review

Abstract

In August 2016 The Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and Colorado State University (CSU) organized a review to characterize the networking requirements of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) located on the campus of Colorado State University. Several key findings highlighting the results from the review were discovered, with benefits to improve the overall scientific process for CIRA and CSU.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1328750
Report Number(s):
LBNL-1006357
ir:1006357
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Zurawski, Jason, W, and Mace, Kathryn, P. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) Requirements Review. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.2172/1328750.
Zurawski, Jason, W, & Mace, Kathryn, P. Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) Requirements Review. United States. doi:10.2172/1328750.
Zurawski, Jason, W, and Mace, Kathryn, P. 2016. "Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) Requirements Review". United States. doi:10.2172/1328750. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1328750.
@article{osti_1328750,
title = {Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) Requirements Review},
author = {Zurawski, Jason, W and Mace, Kathryn, P},
abstractNote = {In August 2016 The Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and Colorado State University (CSU) organized a review to characterize the networking requirements of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) located on the campus of Colorado State University. Several key findings highlighting the results from the review were discovered, with benefits to improve the overall scientific process for CIRA and CSU.},
doi = {10.2172/1328750},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 8
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • The staff of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has prepared Volume 1 of a safety evaluation report (SER), ``NRC Review of Electric Power Research Institute`s Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document -- Program Summary,`` to document the results of its review of the Electric Power Research Institute`s ``Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document.`` This SER provides a discussion of the overall purpose and scope of the Requirements Document, the background of the staff`s review, the review approach used by the staff, and a summary of the policy and technical issues raised by the staff during its review.
  • The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is preparing a compendium of technical requirements, referred to as the {open_quotes}Advanced Light Water Reactor [ALWR] Utility Requirements Document{close_quotes}, that is acceptable to the design of an ALWR power plant. When completed, this document is intended to be a comprehensive statement of utility requirements for the design, construction, and performance of an ALWR power plant for the 1990s and beyond. The Requirements Document consists of three volumes. Volume I, {open_quotes}ALWR Policy and Summary of Top-Tier Requirements{close_quotes}, is a management-level synopsis of the Requirements Document, including the design objectives and philosophy, the overall physical configurationmore » and features of a future nuclear plant design, and the steps necessary to take the proposed ALWR design criteria beyond the conceptual design state to a completed, functioning power plant. Volume II consists of 13 chapters and contains utility design requirements for an evolutionary nuclear power plant [approximately 1350 megawatts-electric (MWe)]. Volume III contains utility design requirements for nuclear plants for which passive features will be used in their designs (approximately 600 MWe). In April 1992, the staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, issued Volume 1 and Volume 2 (Parts 1 and 2) of its safety evaluation report (SER) to document the results of its review of Volumes 1 and 2 of the Requirements Document. Volume 1, {open_quotes}NRC Review of Electric Power Research Institute`s Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document - Program Summary{close_quotes}, provided a discussion of the overall purpose and scope of the Requirements Document, the background of the staff`s review, the review approach used by the staff, and a summary of the policy and technical issues raised by the staff during its review.« less
  • The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is preparing a compendium of technical requirements, referred to as the {open_quotes}Advanced Light Water Reactor [ALWR] Utility Requirements Document{close_quotes}, that is acceptable to the design of an ALWR power plant. When completed, this document is intended to be a comprehensive statement of utility requirements for the design, construction, and performance of an ALWR power plant for the 1990s and beyond. The Requirements Document consists of three volumes. Volume 1, {open_quotes}ALWR Policy and Summary of Top-Tier Requirements{close_quotes}, is a management-level synopsis of the Requirements Document, including the design objectives and philosophy, the overall physical configurationmore » and features of a future nuclear plant design, and the steps necessary to take the proposed ALWR design criteria beyond the conceptual design state to a completed, functioning power plant. Volume II consists of 13 chapters and contains utility design requirements for an evolutionary nuclear power plant [approximately 1350 megawatts-electric (MWe)]. Volume III contains utility design requirements for nuclear plants for which passive features will be used in their designs (approximately 600 MWe). In April 1992, the staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, issued Volume 1 and Volume 2 (Parts 1 and 2) of its safety evaluation report (SER) to document the results of its review of Volumes 1 and 2 of the Requirements Document. Volume 1, {open_quotes}NRC Review of Electric Power Research Institute`s Advanced Light Water Reactor Utility Requirements Document - Program Summary{close_quotes}, provided a discussion of the overall purpose and scope of the Requirements Document, the background of the staff`s review, the review approach used by the staff, and a summary of the policy and technical issues raised by the staff during its review.« less
  • Geologic and engineering data for selected low-permeability gas formations were compiled to provide a basis for selecting potential sites for the Gas Research Institute's (GRI) fourth Staged Field Experiment (SFE) and cooperative wells with industry. Increasingly detailed screening criteria were applied to 189 documented tight-gas settings to designate twelve candidate formations for GRI field research. Technical selection criteria were established to ensure that resulting field research addressed the resource potential of a formation, recognized scientific challenges to be overcome, and maximized opportunities for technology transfer. Four formations are in the Rocky Mountains, two in the Appalachian Basin, two in themore » Denver Basin, and one each in the San Juan, Permian, Anadarko, and Texas Gulf Coast basins. The formations represent a range of current development and technical challenges. Four of the twelve formations were identified as having highest potential: the Abo, Corcoran-Cozzette/Mesaverde, Frontier, and Cleveland. More detailed characterization of these four priority formations appears in Volume II of the report.« less
  • Geological, engineering, and economic data on selected formations were compiled to provide a basis for siting the fourth Staged Field Experiment (SFE) for the Tight Gas Sands research program. The geologic units chosen are the Abo, Cleveland, and Frontier Formations, and the Mesaverde Group. Extrapolation potential is good for all formations except the Cleveland, whose thin deltaic package has no good analogy in other low-permeability sandstones. The Abo has the best potential for extrapolation to other low-permeability formations. Average thickness of reservoirs is about 250 ft in the Mesaverde and Abo, 160 ft in the Frontier, and 120 ft inmore » the Cleveland. Deepest production depth varies from 4,750 ft (Abo) to 12,198 ft (Second Frontier sandstone). Estimated resource base ranges from 3 TCF (Abo) to 86 TCF (Mesaverde). Pre-stimulation production ranges from too small to measure (Cleveland, Frontier, Mesaverde) to 314 MCFD (Frontier). Post-stimulation production ranges from 3 MCFD (Mesaverde) to 12,250 MCFD (Cleveland). Permeability ranges from less than 0.0001 md (Frontier) to 1.3 md (Frontier). Natural fractures have been shown to be significant locally in the Mesaverde, but their contribution to reservoir permeability in the other formations is not well-documented.« less