SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOE contractors”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

180 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

FY2020 performance assessment annual review for the E-area low-level waste facility

The Savannah River Site (SRS) E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) consists of six types of disposal units described in the Performance Assessment (PA) (WSRC, 2008): Low Activity Waste Vault (LAWV), Intermediate Level Vault (ILV), Trenches [Slit Trenches (STs), Engineered Trenches (ETs), and Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches], and Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs). The ELLWF is a part of the Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF). SWMF is managed and operated by the SRS Management and Operations prime contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS). Within SRNS, the Solid Waste Management (SWM) organization is responsible for operating the SWMF, and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is the technical agency responsible for preparing and maintaining the PA. SWMF operations have been performed at SRS since 1952. The mission of the SWMF is to provide storage, processing, disposal, and shipment of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste. The SWMF is committed to treat, store, and dispose of these waste products in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of the facility worker, the co-located worker, and the offsite general public. Wastes handled in the SWMF include low level waste, transuranic waste, hazardous waste, Toxic Substances Control Act waste, and mixed waste (containing both hazardous and radioactive constituents). The FY2020 PA Annual Review for the ELLWF affirms that the disposal facility continued to operate within the bounds of the current PA and Composite Analysis (CA) baseline and the subsequent SA’s and satisfied all the requirements, conditions, and limitations identified in the 2008 DAS (DOE 2008a), RWMB SRNL_STI-2020-00588 Revision 0 vi (McGill, 2020), and ELLWF Low-Level Waste Acceptance Criteria (SRS-1S, 2014). This annual review affirms that the supporting studies performed in FY2020 do not alter the conclusions of the ELLWF PA (WSRC, 2008) and that there is a reasonable expectation that the ELLWF will meet the performance objectives delineated in DOE Manual 435.1-1 (DOE 2011)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

Earned Value Management Systems for Operations Activities

An earned value management system (EVMS), which monitors contractor performance, is a requirement for program and project management for all major acquisitions by the United States Federal Government with development effort: (i.e., an asset requiring management attention because of its importance to an agency’s mission; high development, operating, or maintenance costs; high risk and/or high return). As an area less explored in earned value management (EVM) practices, this paper will survey the application of an EVMS for operations activities defined as: (1) Non-capital asset activities that are projects (or project - like) with definable start and end dates, with discrete scopes of work, and measurable accomplishments; as well as (2) Routine or recurring facility or environmental operations. This paper will examine the use of an EVMS to evaluate performance of operations and maintenance activities required once construction of a capital asset is complete and being used as intended. Such activities include upgrades and maintenance in order for capital assets to meet their mission function over a life-cycle (through repair, replacement, etc.). This paper will provide background on this topic from the perspective of the Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Program. In addition, it will provide material from a panel discussion provided by a group of experts from the October 2019 Office of Environmental Management Project Management Workshop, as well as material from subsequent research on this topic.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2021

Emerging Pathways to Upgrade the US Housing Stock: A Review of the Home Energy Upgrade Literature

The residential buildings sector is responsible for about 20% of total US energy use. In order to achieve climate goals, we need ways to reduce carbon emissions and energy use in this sector. In addition, resiliency, electric grid stability, emergency survivability and other energy and building-related issues are becoming increasingly important challenges. New homes in most of the US meet various energy codes and are reasonably energy efficient. However, the vast majority of energy use is from existing homes that were not required to conform to energy performance requirements. It is becoming imperative to reach as many of these existing homes as possible and find ways to improve their energy-related performance. This must be done in such a way that it meets the needs and desires of homeowners and building occupants, as well as those of the contractors and design professionals engaged in doing the upgrades themselves. Energy retrofits of homes started in the 1970’s in response to the energy crisis, however, these retrofits were very limited in scope and relatively few homes were upgraded. Those homes that have been upgraded generally still have much scope for improvement. A huge effort is needed to get to scale to address the energy use in housing. The target population is effectively every home in the country, whether a large suburban single-family home, or a small downtown apartment. In order to provide a framework for analysis and the basis for plans to get to large-scale retrofits of homes, this literature review summarizes the state-of-the art in the US buildings industry. It identifies where more research, engineering, or technology is needed, as well as relevant industry trends, such as electrification, one-stop shop program design and others. It also examines other key topics, such as availability of financing, minimizing household disruption, and engaging home owners and occupants. This literature review builds on a similar review from several years ago (Less and Walker, 2014). The current review focuses on efforts in the intervening years. This literature review is part of a larger DOE study of deep energy upgrades that includes industry surveys and development of cost-stack analyses. For this review, we gathered data not just from the published literature, but also from practitioners in conjunction with other aspects of the larger DOE study. In some cases, we refer to comments from specific individuals or companies, or refer to specific products by name. This is not intended as an endorsement, but rather to provide clarity on sources of information and examples of relevant technologies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

NRIC Asset Suite Engineering and Operations Data Integration Plan

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC), established by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in August 2019, accelerates the demonstration and deployment of advanced nuclear energy through its mission to inspire stakeholders and the public, empower innovators, and deliver successful outcomes through efficient coordination of partners and resources. NRIC is a national program led by Idaho National Laboratory (INL), enabling collaborators to harness the world-class capabilities of the U.S. National Laboratory System. Committed to demonstrating advanced reactors by the end of 2025, NRIC is designed to bridge the gap between research, development, and the marketplace to help convert some of the Nation’s most promising advanced nuclear reactors into commercial applications by 2030. To meet these needs, NRIC is developing two reactor demonstration test beds at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the Laboratory for Operation and Testing in the United States (LOTUS) and the Demonstration and Operation of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) test bed. Each test bed involves the modification of existing facilities at INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC). Retrofitting these facilities to accommodate novel reactors, as well as subsequent but similar NRIC projects, is a non-trivial engineering task and is expected to generate a significant amount of new and revised documentation. Leveraging digital engineering practices, this documentation will be managed in a purpose-built data management tool to facilitate origination, review, and approval while coordinating with the design contractor. The subsequent upload and review of documentation to INL’s existing document control system comprises a long and unnecessarily manual task. An opportunity exists to automate this upload process and save job-hours while continuing to adhere to INL/MFC document management procedures.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Use of Historical EM Practices and Policies for Management of Cleanup Program and Address GAO Concerns - 20222

As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

FY2019 Performance Assessment Annual Review for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

FY2019 Performance Assessment Annual Review for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Development of Integrated Mechanical Pods

This presentation highlights early wins, updated progress, and upcoming developments on ‘national-scale shared development platform’ for rapid prototyping, testing and validation of various integrated Mechanical Pod solutions and form factors. Such pod solutions consist of a set of all-electric heat pump mechanical equipment that have integrated functionalities through built-in controls, with heating, cooling, hot water, ventilation (including energy recovery), electrical management, and battery storage within a single package. The presentation draws inspiration from the success of bathroom pods in the US modular construction industry, UK’s efforts with unitizing mechanical systems as ‘utility cupboards’, and VEIC’s early wins in design-build of all-electric Mechanical Pod solutions in Vermont. The presentation includes researchers and partners involved with NREL in Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA), Virtual Design and Construction (VDC), and digital twin based process optimization modeling of integrated Mechanical Pod solutions. The presentation aims to highlight early wins from such a platform and how various physical and virtual tools are currently being employed as part of NREL’s ongoing multi-year project funded by US DOE. Streamlined procurement, coordination, installation, and O&M of Mechanical Pods such that the majority of work is delegated to the off-site modular factory implies monetary savings. Such a seemingly basic shift in location of the construction process leads to great reduction in complexity, first cost, lead time, and waste, and greater opportunities for innovative compartmentalization and integration of mechanical systems appropriately sized for each apartment or hotel guest room. However, past studies on unitized combination systems show that high installation costs, maintenance issues, challenges with system integration, limitations in existing electrical infrastructure, and lack of architecturally appealing solutions are key barriers. NREL and partners aim to address key barriers through DfMA approach, rapid prototyping and testing, and digital twin process optimization modeling. The presentation is also a call for interested entities to partner with NREL as part of the national-scale development platform, help drive both product and process innovation, and encourage open source sharing of learnings. Learning objectives include (1) learn about the vision of national-scale shared development platform for process-product innovation on integrated mechanical pod solutions and how to get involved, (2) gain an understanding of the components of an all-electric, high performance home, design characteristics and equipment included in an all-electric mechanical pod, integration of mechanical systems within a modular factories’ assembly line, and the system’s commissioning, operation and maintenance. The pre-planning and coordination with the factory and sub-contractors are also highlighted, (3) gain an understanding of using process modeling tools to quantify resource-constrained performance of operations (such as integration of energy efficiency strategies) to manufacture modules of varying design, (4) gain insights on virtual design, rapid prototyping, and emulated testing of various form factors across different climatic conditions. The need for such preliminary testing with open source sharing of learnings will also be highlighted.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Incentivizing Cold-Climate Efficiency in Juneau (Final Report)

This is the final technical report for the DOE EERE BTO project Incentivizing Cold-Climate Efficiency in Juneau. The project implemented a community energy campaign to deploy heat pumps and efficiency for residents of Juneau, in Southeast Alaska. The project helped Juneau make progress towards its renewable energy goal of reaching 80% renewable energy for space heating by 2045. The Incentivizing Cold-Climate Efficiency in Juneau (ICE-Juneau) project began in 2020 and concluded three years later in 2023. During that time, a group of implementation partners and a research advisory team instituted a beneficial electrification campaign to promote energy savings and carbon reduction in residences of Juneau, Alaska. The campaign, Thermalize Juneau, focused on the installation of single head ductless mini-split heat pumps along with other efficiency upgrades. Thermalize Juneau was the first campaign of its kind in Alaska. After several months of planning, registration opened to the public in early 2021, and over the course of six months 164 participants enrolled. Campaign staff provided education to homeowners on heat pumps and efficiency, and each participant received a one-on-one heat pump assessment using a custom Microsoft Excel-based calculator that estimated energy savings for their residence based on building characteristics and past utility bills. Participants could also obtain a free energy audit from one of the two local energy auditors to further inform their decision. A heat pump installer, electrician, and builder were selected via a competitive RFP process. Participants who felt ready to install a heat pump or other efficiency upgrades received a site visit and custom quote from each of these contractors free of charge, and if they still felt energy upgrades were right for them, could move forward with an individual contract. Participants received a $400 heat pump installation rebate, offered by the installer if 40 heat pump installations occurred through the campaign. Overall, the campaign facilitated 75 heat pump installations (including participants that went with another contractor or heat pump model) and 30 efficiency upgrades (including participants that went with another builder or did DIY upgrades). The campaign created 3 new jobs as the heat pump installer hired an administrative assistant and two apprentices over the course of the campaign. It also helped Juneau work toward achieving its renewable energy goal of 80% renewable energy for space heating by 2045 by upgrading houses from fuel oil to heat pumps powered by the hydropower electric grid. Researchers conducted four surveys to inform Thermalize Juneau and future energy campaigns. The first surveyed existing and prospective heat pump owners in Juneau to identify barriers the campaign could address and inform recruitment efforts. Entry and exit surveys provided information on participant demographics, goals, outcomes, and suggestions for improving future campaigns. And a final survey of community members who had not participated in Thermalize Juneau gave insight on ways future campaigns could include a greater diversity of participants so they could realize similar benefits. Researchers also used pre-campaign energy modeling to predict energy savings, which was then compared to the savings estimated through aggregation of heat pump assessments and energy audits, and later to actual energy savings of 10 participants who installed a heat pump and were able to provide complete energy use data sets. In addition to energy savings, and to assist the electric utility in future planning efforts, researchers analyzed the overall change in electric use across participants with energy data and heat pump installations. They also completed a life cycle cost analysis, showing positive net present values for those displacing a fuel oil appliance, and a more mixed case for those switching from electric baseboard. This project proved the feasibility of energy campaigns, with a goal of beneficial electrification, in cold, remote locations. The Thermalize Juneau team compiled a Guidebook to Thermalize Campaigns, available online. In addition to documenting what occurred in Alaska’s first thermalize campaign, it provides tips and resources for other communities wishing to implement a similar program.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Advances in Modeling Capabilities for Critical Mineral Separation Technologies: A PrOMMiS Overview

This is an oral presentation at the TechConnect conference on the work developed by PrOMMiS. PrOMMiS builds on and extends capabilities developed within the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Institute for the Design of Advanced Energy Systems (IDAES), Integrated Platform, and Water Treatment Technoeconomic Assessment Platform (WaterTAP), which have been successfully leveraged by other Department of Energy research areas. The open-source toolkit facilitates validation, reproducibility, and accountability, allowing for easy extension of the framework to other systems. This talk presents an overview of the PrOMMiS capabilities, including unit model library, advances in thermophysical properties models, and capital cost libraries for simulation and optimization of mineral processing technologies. The PrOMMiS applications include (1) conceptual design and superstructure optimization for screening different process configurations and identifying promising technologies; (2) dynamic modeling and optimization to enable the creation of digital twins; (3) surrogate modeling tools to leverage data when predictive thermodynamic models are not currently available; (4) technical risk reduction via uncertainty quantification and robust optimization to identify process designs that are robust to process variability and uncertainties; and (5) deployment of uncertainty quantification tools to maximize knowledge gained from experimental campaigns, while reducing the number of experiments required

critical minerals and materials↗

DOE OSTI2023

Idaho National Laboratory’s FY 22 Greenhouse Gas Report

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic approach to account for the production and release of certain gases generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gases of interest are those that climate science has identified as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during fiscal year (FY) 2022 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL)—a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored entity located in southeastern Idaho. In recent years, concern has grown about the environmental impact of GHGs. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of an inventory of the total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 14057 requires that federal agencies and institutions track and report GHG emissions where required. INL’s GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occurring outside INL’s organizational boundaries, but are a consequence of INL’s activities). This inventory found that INL generated 75,572.42 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions during FY 2022. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL’s FY 2022 GHG inventory: • Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL’s GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO2e emissions. • Other sources with high emissions were mobile combustion (fleet fuels), employee commuting, stationary combustion (facility fuels), and waste disposal (fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill). • Sources with low emissions were waste disposal (contracted disposal), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL’s GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only INL’s activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Idaho National Laboratory’s FY 2021 Greenhouse Gas Report

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic approach to account for the production and release of certain gases generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gases of interest are those that climate science has identified as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL)—a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored entity located in southeastern Idaho. In recent years, concern has grown about the environmental impact of GHGs. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of an inventory of the total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 13834 requires that federal agencies and institutions track and report GHG emissions where required. INL’s GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occurring outside INL’s organizational boundaries but are a consequence of INL’s activities). This inventory found that INL generated 81,185.05 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions during FY 2021. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL’s FY 2021 GHG inventory: Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL’s GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO 2 e emissions; Other sources with high emissions were mobile combustion (fleet fuels), employee commuting, stationary combustion (facility fuels), and waste disposal (fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill); Sources with low emissions were waste disposal (contracted disposal), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL’s GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only INL’s activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Idaho National Laboratory’s FY 2020 Greenhouse Gas Report

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic approach to account for the production and release of certain gases generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gases of interest are those that climate science has identified as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during fiscal year (FY) 2020 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL)—a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored entity located in southeastern Idaho. In recent years, concern has grown about the environmental impact of GHGs. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of an inventory of the total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 13834 requires that federal agencies and institutions track and report GHG emissions where required. INL’s GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG Guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occurring outside INL’s organizational boundaries, but are a consequence of INL’s activities). This inventory found that INL generated 76,494.12 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions during FY 2020. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL’s FY 2020 GHG inventory: (1) Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL’s GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO 2 e emissions; (2) Other sources with high emissions were employee commuting, mobile combustion (fleet fuels), stationary combustion (facility fuels), and waste disposal (fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill); and (3) Sources with low emissions were waste disposal (contracted disposal), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL’s GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only INL’s activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2025

Informed Critical Mineral Recovery from Fossil Energy Waste Feedstocks

Critical minerals (CM), such as rare earth elements (REE), cobalt, nickel, and lithium, have important uses in modern energy and technologies, yet are vulnerable to potential supply chain disruptions. One potential domestic CM source is fossil energy wastes, such as coal combustion ash, acid mine drainage (AMD) and treatment solids (AMD solids), and Oil and Gas (O&G) drilling wastes (drill cuttings and produced waters). CM recovery from these feedstocks is promising due to their abundant quantity and fast availability as waste products. To develop informed and effective CM recovery, DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) have collected and analyzed CM data for aforementioned fossil energy wastes, and utilized advanced geochemical characterization (e.g., synchrotron microprobe, sequential extraction and geochemical modeling) to identify the CM speciation and binding environments. Novel methods that recover multiple CMs while co-producing other valuable byproducts from these feedstocks have been developed. Successful examples include: (1) the discovery of easily mobile REE phases in Ca-rich coal combustion ash resulted in a patented REE recovery process from the ash feedstock while producing zeolite sorbents from the extraction wastes; (2) the successful identification of REE/Co/Ni/Zn hosting phases in acid mine drainage treatment solids (AMD solids) has informed the sequential CM recovery from AMD solids and has inspired lithium sorbent development from the extraction wastes; (3) the recovery potential of Li and other CMs in O&G produced waters and drill cuttings has been explored while the extraction residuals have been demonstrated to support plant growth as soil supplements. The innovations driven by characterization information have the potential to maximize CM recovery revenue, offset the cost of waste management and wastewater treatments while reducing the cost and environmental footprint of CM extraction.

characterization and extraction of rare earth elem↗

DOE OSTI2025

Demand Response in Residential Energy Code: Technical Brief

As buildings account for over 75% of U.S. electricity use, effectively managing their loads can greatly facilitate the transition towards a clean, reliable grid. Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) combine efficiency and demand flexibility with smart technologies and communication to provide occupant comfort and productivity while serving the grid as a distributed energy resource (DER). In turn, GEBs can play a key role in ensuring access to an affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern U.S. electric power system. Their national adoption could provide $\$$100-200 billion in U.S. electric power system cost savings over the next two decades. The associated reduction in CO 2 emissions is estimated at 6% per year by 2030 (DOE 2021). Building codes represent standard design practice in the construction industry and continually evolve to include advanced technologies and innovative practices. Historically, national model energy codes establish minimum efficiency requirements for new construction (ICC 2020). Expanding codes to support GEB capabilities is a pivotal step towards realizing demand flexibility in support of a clean grid by addressing capabilities to improve interoperability between smart building systems, the grid, and renewable energy resources. Realizing GEBs requires buildings with automated demand response (DR) capabilities that enable standardized communication with or control of, subject to explicit consumer consent, energy smart appliances or home energy management systems. This is achieved through direct or indirect (i.e., via an aggregator) communication between appliances and the electric grid. Energy codes can also support DR communication standardization and advance the deployment of building-integrated DERs such as energy storage, generation, and electric vehicles (EVs). Incorporating automated DR capabilities in energy codes provides many benefits to the consumers. Specifically, it aligns building electric load demand with intermittent renewable energy source availability, decreases peak load on the electric grid, allows buildings to respond to utility price signals, supports electrical network reliability and market growth of products and processes aligned with clean economic growth. The incorporation of DR into the model residential energy codes was considered for both the 2021 and 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) code development cycles. The approved DR measures in the 2021 cycle were removed in response to appeals (ICC 2020). Updated language was presented for consideration again for the 2024 IECC, where it was negotiated and again approved, and again removed in response to appeals (ICC 2024). This resulted in many sections, including sections on demand responsive controls, being moved to the credits options or an appendix as a voluntary application. This technical brief updates the proposed DR components such that they can be considered by states and local governments for direct incorporation into their codes, as well as for future IECC energy code development. The proposal refinements are intended to support consistency in approach and provide a degree of certainty for building owners, designers, contractors, manufacturers, and building and fire safety professionals. The scope of this technical brief includes three strategies for DR in residential buildings: 1) smart thermostats with demand-responsive control, 2) electric water heating incorporating demand-responsive controls and communication and 3) grid Integrated solar and energy storage systems.

2021 IECC↗

DOE OSTI2025

Draft Prototype Microreactor Transportation Safety Program

Microreactors are compact reactors capable of producing less than 50 megawatts of electrical energy. Typically, these reactors are factory-fabricated and designed to be easily transportable by truck, rail, vessel, or air. Microreactor designs often assume that the unit can be transported containing either unirradiated or irradiated fuel. The interest in microreactors is driven by several factors, including the need to generate power on at remote locations, at military installations, at facilities such as data centers, and in areas recovering from natural disasters. The U.S. Department of Defense is actively pursuing the microreactor concept to meet the increasing energy demands of military operations that require portable and dense power sources. Commercial vendors are also exploring microreactor concepts. The report Microreactor Transportation Emergency Planning Challenges (Maheras et al. 2024) outlined the emergency planning challenges associated with the transportation of microreactors by road, rail, and by barge/ship. The successful commercial deployment and redeployment of microreactors will also require the development of microreactor transportation safety programs. The elements in these safety programs are not specific to microreactors; however, the transport of microreactors may pose unique challenges in these areas. This report builds on the report Microreactor Transportation Emergency Planning Challenges (Maheras et al. 2024) and develops the elements of a prototype microreactor transportation safety program that describes the elements that should be contained vendor-developed microreactor transportation safety programs, identifying the unique elements associated with microreactor transport. This will provide vendors and their transportation contractors a basis for their transportation planning and will accelerate the commercial deployment and redeployment of microreactors by identifying those issues unique to microreactor transport. The emphasis of this report is on highway transport of microreactors. This is based on a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission transportation package approval strategy of crawl-walk-run, where transport by highway is evaluated first (Coles et al. 2021, 2024, Maheras et al. 2021), then other surface modes (rail and barge/ship), and finally air transport. Evaluation of maritime transport of microreactors was recently initiated (Rigato et al. 2024, Maheras et al. 2025). The report first discusses microreactors in general and microreactor transportation safety program planning assumptions. The report then provides a description of the transportation safety planning process and provides an extensive discussion of the elements of transportation safety programs. Specific elements examined included transportation roles and responsibilities, transportation planning, transportation mode and route selection, carrier selection, transportation packaging, advance notification of shipments, public information and communications, emergency response plans and procedures, inspections, security, safe parking, shipment tracking, weather and road conditions, medical preparedness, training and exercises, and program evaluation. The report then identifies the unique elements of a transportation safety program associated with microreactor transport. These unique elements were in the areas of: the unusual nature of microreactor designs, compensatory measures, increased radiation dose rates in the vicinity of microreactors, transportation package approval versus 10 CFR 50.59, and the use of a risk-informed transportation package approval process.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Modeling Marangoni Convection using a Velocity-Time Relationship

The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Handford site is designed to treat 56 million gallons of radioactive waste through vitrification. The melting vessels physical and chemical integrity is essential to maintain, as failure has a high safety and financial penalty. Monofrax® K-3 refractory, the material widely used for the melting vessel, undergoes significant corrosion over time, concentrated at the triple-point junction between the gaseous atmosphere, refractory, and glass melt, producing a characteristic neck-like profile that significantly limits refractory service life. Accurate prediction of the corrosion within the melter can be used to prevent this and extend the lifetime of the melters. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model was previously developed, and predicted subsurface refractory corrosion, but failed to predict the neck-line profile observed experimentally. To address this limitation, the glass-melt meniscus geometry at the glass-refractory interface was estimated from experimentally measured neck profiles and wettability experiments. A curve was fitted to the neck profile to identify the triple point location, and the meniscus shape was characterized by a contact angle of 1°. A velocity profile accounting for Marangoni convection-driven corrosion was derived from the estimated meniscus geometry. Surface tension measurements from LORPM14R1 glasses of varying composition were coupled with K-3 coupon dissolution rates to establish a surface tension–time relationship. This analytical velocity-time model was integrated into the existing CFD framework to improve prediction of the neck corrosion profile. Work was done in a computational setting with national collaboration, resulting in professional development through presentational and technical writing growth.

36 - MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

DOE Award No.: DE-FE0023919 Phase 4 Scientific/Technical Report

This is the Phase 4 Report for the ‘Deepwater Methane Hydrate Characterization and Scientific Assessment or Genesis of Methane Hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM2)’ research project (DOE Award No. DE-FE0023919). The report summarizes activities from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020. The project is led by the University of Texas at Austin (UT). The project objective is to gain insight into the nature, formation, occurrence and physical properties of methane hydrate-bearing sediments for the purpose of methane hydrate resource appraisal through the planning and execution of drilling, coring, logging, testing and analytical activities that assess the geologic occurrence, regional context, and characteristics of marine methane hydrate deposits in the Gulf of Mexico outer continental shelf (OCS). We published a dedicated American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin volume describing initial results from the UT-GOM2-1 expedition in Sept. 2020. This is part 1 of a multi-volume commitment by AAPG to this project. We further confirmed that the natural gas in hydrate at GC-955 was formed by primary microbial processes (>76.1 %). The in-situ effective permeability hydrate-bearing sandy silts at the GC-955 reservoir ranges from 0.1 md (1.0×10-16 m2) to 2.4 md (2.4×10-15m2) in cores with 83% to 93% hydrate saturation. The intrinsic permeability (the single phase permeability) is estimated from reconstituted samples to be ~12 md (1.2×10-14 m2) to ~41 md (4.1×10-14 m2). We used observation and models to interpret that the core degradation that is found in pressure cores is due to dissociation of the methane hydrate in the outer circumference of the core and dissolution of that methane into the fresh pore water that the core is stored with. We are designing approaches to minimize this core loss in the future. We spent an enormous amount of effort to further improve the ability of the pressure coring tool (the PCTB) to pressure seal correctly. We completed upgrading the upper section of the PCTB to address poor pressure. We successful tested the modifications at Geotek’s test facility in Salt Lake City (Bench Test II). We completed a Land Test of the PCTB at the Schlumberger Cameron Test and Training Facility (CTTF). The tool did not seal in 6 out of 7 tests and we clearly demonstrated that cuttings were wedging in the ball valve assembly, keeping the ball valve from sealing. We reproduced the failure mechanism observed during the land test at Salt Lake City and confirmed the sensitivity of the ball valve assembly to grit. Geotek designed and tested 9 modifications to address this issue and the PCTB is now 100% successfully sealing in the presence of grit. Our science expedition is scheduled for spring 2022 and we are fully focused on preparing for this. UT and Ohio State completed a Shallow Hazard Assessment report for each proposed UT-GOM2-2 drilling location, pursuant to 30 CFR 250.214(f) and 250.244 (f). The Shallow Hazard Reports will accompany the UT-GOM2-2 Exploration Plan that is submitted to BOEM, and completes the geological and geophysical analysis for UT-GOM2-2 permitting efforts. We updated the UT-GOM2-2 Operations Plan (Version 1). We completed the UT-GOM2-2 Science and Sample Distribution Plan (Version 1). We evaluated the scope, budget, and schedule that would result from using a commercial vessel. We developed detailed drilling schedule, mud volume, and resource estimates. We developed a vessel specification document and a well plan, and sent these documents to prospective vessel contractors.

03 NATURAL GAS↗