Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “federal energy management program”

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.

249 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Interior Athabascan Energy Capacity Building Network (Final Report)

Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) is the traditional tribal consortium for the 37 federally recognized Tribes and villages of Interior Alaska. TCC is based on a belief in tribal self-determination and the need for regional Native unity. TCC is a nonprofit organization that works toward meeting the needs and challenges for more than 10,000 Alaska Natives (mostly Alaskan Athabaskans) in Interior Alaska. With support from DOE-OIE’s Inter-Tribal Technical Assistance grant, TCC’s goal was to expand and build on the solid foundation of work that the existing TCC Energy Program established through the creation of the Interior Athabascan Energy Network (IAEN). More specifically, the IAEN was designed to create a network of village-based energy champions across the interior and hold quarterly teleconferences and annual inperson meetings. Among the greatest impacts of the IAEN were the creation and support of realistic, communitybased energy projects that produced tangible results such as fuel savings and skills and capacity development among local staff as well as establishment of an energy team that included TCC staff, Tribal participants, technical consultants, and support agencies. The DOE-TA funding allowed us to provide technical assistance to our Tribal communities to develop energy projects, and to foster a network consisting of Tribal community members and energy experts that has strengthened the ability in the region to troubleshoot energy issues, develop meaningful projects, envision a clean energy future, and to share project successes and challenges. The funding from DOE was a catalyst for growth, has created opportunities for learning and knowledge sharing, and has led to the development of cost saving energy projects. Most importantly, the DOE project allowed energy champions around the region to share their knowledge, experiences, and expertise to create place-based solutions and has forged inter-Tribal relationships that will continue to be an asset for years to come. Through information exchange that occurred at out IAEN annual meetings and other events, this technical assistance grant award has spurred a spinoff project that is focused on establishing a collaborative of independent utilities that work together to solve energy problems and share services to operate and maintain their electric utilities. We have indentified at least 10 and possibly 12 communities that are interested in collaborating in managing their utilities to reduce costs and increase reliability. As well, by identifying and supporting Community Energy Champions in the Interior villages and adding capacity to the TCC Energy Program, we were able to create actionable community energy plans, develop specific projects, and increase local capacity, skills, and literacy around clean energy initiatives.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Natural Resources Assessment for the SNS Second Target Station, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

The US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a leading institution in advanced materials, supercomputing, neutrons, and nuclear science. As a research laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for DOE, ORNL has national priorities in energy, security, and scientific discovery that necessitate facility improvements and expansions. DOE is also committed to environmental stewardship. The laboratory is located on the ~32,000-acre Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), much of which is categorized as a National Environmental Research Park and a state Wildlife Management Area. DOE works with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of Agriculture, and other agencies to serve as an effective steward of the ORR. Accordingly, project managers must conform to environmental regulations, agreements, and policies at the federal, state, and institutional levels. Per 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1508.14, potential effects on research and science education on the National Environmental Research Park represent potential impacts of federal actions. Moreover, federal actions that affect the quantity and quality of hunting opportunities and deer reduction harvest on the Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area must be considered whenever other aspects of the human environment (as defined by NEPA) are affected. The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is a premiere facility at ORNL that provides advanced capabilities in neutron scattering to promote new discoveries and research opportunities in material sciences, physics, chemistry, biological sciences, and others. A conceptual design for a Second Target Station (STS) has been in consideration for several years. The STS is intended to complement and enhance existing ORNL capabilities, notably research and exploration of complex materials. The proposed STS will involve development of existing natural areas on the ORR, which might contain sensitive resources that require mitigation or avoidance in accordance with existing policies and regulation. This report summarizes current knowledge of natural and cultural resources within the STS project area. At the time of this report, the proposed STS project consisted of an operations area comprising 55.4 acres (22.4 ha) and a total review area for potential construction comprising ~224 acres (90.6 ha). The review area is located primarily within forested natural areas of the ORR with minor development in the form of power-line rights-of-way and secondary/graveled roads (Figure 1). The primary goal was to evaluate potential effects on sensitive resources that might result from development of the STS. In addition to onthe-ground surveys during summer 2009 and fall 2019 to summer 2020 by ORNL Natural Resources Management Program and Aquatic Ecology Group staff, this report makes use of historical (pre-1995) and contemporary (1995 to present) data from additional confirmed sources (e.g., TDEC). Likewise, forest conditions were compiled primarily from a 2013 forest inventory effort for Forest Management Compartment 17 and supplemented with limited ground observations in 2019. The individuals who obtained and compiled the data that are presented here are familiar with and routinely assess sensitive resources on the ORR.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accelerating Nuclear Facility Mission Completion Through an Improved Chemical Hazard Control Strategy - 20460

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management [1], explicitly identifies hazardous materials in addition to radioactive materials when establishing the scope of materials that must be evaluated in Hazard Category (HC) 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. This inclusion has led to a near decade-long progression of more and more rigorous application of chemical hazard controls in these facilities. The progressive addition of more rigorous chemical hazard controls has occurred across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex, having been driven by contractors and regulators alike. However, chemical hazards in other DOE facilities have been, and continue to be, controlled using traditional industrial safety centered strategies. Thus, identical chemical hazards are controlled using dramatically different approaches based solely on the facility type. Not only are the controls different, the analysis and derivation rigor and requirements are also significantly different. In particular, chemical control derivation and application in non-nuclear facilities are much less onerous than the comprehensive hazard analysis process used in nuclear facilities, even in circumstances in which chemicals are not initiators to, or do not exacerbate a nuclear event. While the derivation and control approaches used in these two types of facilities are disparate, the safety results are similarly effective based on a review of reported chemical events from 2014 through 2018. While both approaches achieve comparable safety outcomes, the approach used in nuclear facilities results in significantly greater preparation costs and implementation costs. Furthermore, the problem with the differing approach is not relegated to the control preparation and implementation burden. The operational impact of potentially unnecessary controls slows mission completion without a corresponding increase in safety, not to mention the dilution of the importance of Technical Safety Requirements. The proposed solution must first include a critical and thorough examination of DOE Complex and top-tier chemical industry chemical hazard control practices, coupled with a similar examination of the driving facility regulatory requirements. Results from the examination can then be used to fuel a bold departure from current chemical control practices in Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. Development of an improved and consistent chemical hazard control process would follow, one that continues to ensure safety while accelerating mission completion and significantly reducing the burden associated with chemical hazard control development and implementation. The improved process must establish a hierarchy where radiological hazards are addressed using safety class and safety significant controls and chemical hazards are addressed using overarching safety management programs (with limited unique exceptions). The improved Hazard Category 1,2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy, while compliant with 10 CFR 830 [1], would be founded on the requirements in 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program [2], and the complementary DOE O 151.1D, Comprehensive Emergency Management System [3]. In this way, the Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy would, wherever appropriate, be the same process used at other DOE Complex facilities. Ultimately, the improved process will maintain safety and significantly reduce costs and life cycle risk through faster mission completion. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sensitive Resources Assessment and Forest Analysis for the Proposed Versatile Test Reactor, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

The US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a leading institution in advanced materials, supercomputing, neutrons, and nuclear science. As a research laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for DOE, ORNL has national priorities in energy, security, and scientific discovery that necessitate facility improvements and expansions. DOE is also committed to environmental stewardship. The laboratory is located on the ~32,000-acre (~13,000-ha) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), much of which is categorized as a National Environmental Research Park (NERP) and a state Wildlife Management Area. DOE works with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of Agriculture, and other agencies to serve as an effective steward of the ORR. Accordingly, project managers must conform to environmental regulations, agreements, and policies at the federal, state, and institutional levels. Per 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1508.14, potential effects on research and science education also represent potential effects of federal actions on the NERP, and impacts on, e.g., deer harvest, must be considered on the Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area when other aspects of the human environment are affected. The United States currently has no fast neutron testing capability to support advanced nuclear research and development. The proposed Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) will take advantage of current investments by the US government and private industry in nuclear reactors to expedite the design and construction process, using proven technology to create a world-class scientific infrastructure. The VTR will take advantage of fast neutrons provided by this proven technology, along with a capability to rapidly insert, conduct, and remove state-of-the-art experiments. An advantage of the VTR is that it can support future innovations in experimental capabilities without modifying the facility. The VTR will support progress in a variety of science and technology areas, including testing and qualification of advanced reactor fuels; testing and qualification of innovative structural materials; testing of innovative components and instruments; validation of advanced modeling and simulation tools; and versatility for future technical missions. Through proven technology, the VTR can take advantage of existing reactor designs and operating experience to reduce the risk, cost, and time for design and construction. The top available resources of DOE laboratories, industry, and universities will be used to expedite reactor design and construction toward developing the scientific infrastructure that affords a strong testing capability that can be sustained over many years. This report summarizes current knowledge of natural and cultural resources primarily within the VTR construction area. At the time of this report, the proposed VTR site design includes a construction area of ~150.4 acres (~69.9 ha), which contains an ~51.3-acre (~20.8-ha) operations area, located within forested natural areas of the ORR. The primary goal of the work presented here was to evaluate potential effects on sensitive resources that might result from development and construction activities associated with VTR. In addition to on-the-ground surveys during spring and summer 2020 by the ORNL Natural Resources Management Program and Aquatic Ecology Group staff, this report makes use of historical (pre-1995) and contemporary (1995 to present) data from additional confirmed sources (e.g., TDEC). Likewise, forest conditions were compiled from a 2011 forest inventory and supplemented with limited ground observations in 2020. The individuals who obtained and compiled the data presented here are familiar with and routinely assess sensitive resources on the ORR. Anyone who references this report must consider that the timing of surveys did not permit a complete delineation of the resources that will be affected. If the VTR project proceeds, additional surveys will be required to account for the seasonal patterns of various threatened and endangered species. Data deficiencies and potential resources that likely went undetected are indicated where possible. Accordingly, this report should facilitate more environmentally sound decisions during planning and 2 development of the VTR site, provide a foundation for further assessment of sensitive and cultural resources, and help project managers better address regulatory guidance and DOE policies on sustainable development in compliance with, for example, the US Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Tennessee Rare Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1985, Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974, several federal and state regulations regarding aquatic resource protection, and site-specific policies as outlined in various ORR management plans developed by ORNL and TWRA for DOE.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Packages of Distributed Energy Technologies Demonstrating Demand Flexibility at Community Scale

The combination of increased electric load growth across all sectors, deferred electrical infrastructure investment, and other factors resulting in variable electric power supply, has created technical challenges to maintaining a resilient and reliable grid. Many federal, regional, and local efforts are in play to modernize the electric grid, including advancing building technologies and distributed energy resources (DERs) that are utilizing smarter controls to become responsive to both occupant and grid needs. This report reviews ten pilot projects demonstrating how groups of buildings combined with behind-the-meter (BTM) DERs such as electric vehicle (EV) charging, battery storage, flexible HVAC and domestic hot water systems, and photovoltaic systems can reliably and cost effectively provide grid services. Each of the ten pilot projects aim to deliver both energy efficiency and demand flexibility (DF) while supporting load growth. The ten demonstration teams are piloting flexible DER packages across diverse communities of residential and commercial buildings to address a variety of regional grid needs. The outcomes of these pilot projects will be used to inform future scaling through utility program development. This paper characterizes the ten teams, showcasing the decision-making process used by each group to develop their packages (Section 2), the grid services they plan to deliver (Section 3), the types of DER packages selected for deployment within building sectors (Section 4) and trends between building sector, DER types, and grid services In order to achieve community scale benefits, the pilot projects must utilize aggregated control mechanisms for coordinating buildings and DERs together. Several types of coordinated control architectures have evolved amongst the teams, influenced by use type, existing market conditions, and integration type. Three coordinated controls architectures have been characterized, highlighting their use cases, benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs in their design. These insights can aid utilities, control vendors, and developers in scaling community-level energy systems (Paul, 2024). Ultimately, the technology packages selected by the ten teams will be coordinated to provide power system services, also known as grid services. Insights from these demonstrations will be useful for grid operators, regulators, aggregators and other stakeholders as they look to deploy demand flexible resources as grid services in the future. The grid services that each team is targeting for demonstration are described in Section 3 and Section 4. Methods for evaluating the grid services have been described in the paper Metrics for Evaluating Grid Service Provision from Communities of Grid-interactive and Efficient Buildings and other DER (MacDonald, 2023). To identify technology packages for demonstration, Section 2 shows that project teams used a range of analysis approaches, including building energy modeling, AMI data analysis, cost-benefit frameworks, and utility pilot data. Some teams emphasized technical modeling to quantify grid impacts and demand reduction potential, while others prioritized economic evaluations, stakeholder input, or exploratory pilots to inform deployment decisions. This diversity reflects the need to tailor selection methods to project goals, available data, and organizational context. Section 5 discusses trends between the DER technologies deployed and the grid service provisions from each team. Residential buildings (multifamily and single family) lean towards technologies that enhance energy efficiency (e.g. weatherization upgrades, smart thermostats) and onsite power generation integration (e.g. solar PV). Commercial building demonstrations prioritize technologies that ensure operational reliability (e.g. battery storage) and centralized energy management systems and optimization solutions. Teams that are deploying controllable storage-based technologies are more likely to provide grid services that require a near real-time response. Teams incorporating load shifting technologies like smart thermostats with HEMs are likely to include energy markets participation and customer bill management offerings. Campus demonstrations are adopting diverse sets of DERs to emphasize renewable generation, paired with centralized control. This section also describes technologies that were considered during project planning but ultimately excluded from final deployment. These demonstrations reveal that effective DER package design should be tailored to building type, customer segment, and construction vintage. Multifamily buildings benefit from centralized HVAC upgrades and supervisory controls, while single-family homes are well-suited for individualized technologies like solar, storage, and smart home energy monitors. Commercial and campus settings prioritize EMIS integration and load optimization. New construction enables cost-effective integration of DER-ready infrastructure, whereas retrofits require deployments aligned with owner and tenant value streams. For utility program planners, early coordination with developers and building owners, paired with segmented and modular program offerings, can improve adoption, scalability, and grid impact.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

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

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

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluation of Building 23-702, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory H-8 Foil Handling Building, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-702, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) H-8 Foil Handling Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15278) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. As part of the modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement Between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-702 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-702 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-702 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding of Effect, and Mitigation Documentation for the Main Gate (23-GS100), Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to replace the existing guard shack at the Main Gate (23-GS100, Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. S1758) to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The purpose of the project is to improve security. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. The Main Gate is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria, prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. Thus, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the Main Gate as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that the Main Gate is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under SOI Significance Criterion A at the national level of significance for its direct, important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1965 (the date the current Main Gate was constructed) through 1992 (when critical nuclear testing on the NNSS ceased).

23-GS100↗
DOE OSTI2022

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding Of Effect, And Mitigation Documentation For Building 23-113, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-113 in Mercury (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15236), which is on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. Demolition of Building 23-113 is part of the long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury on the NNSS for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (the Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-113 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-113 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that although Building 23-113 is significant at the local level for its important role as a recreational facility on the NNSS, the building lacks sufficient integrity to convey its significance. It is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP at any level. The building remains eligible as a contributing element to the MHD.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Potential State Regulatory Pathways to Facilitate Low-Carbon Fuels

States and the federal government are increasingly engaged in the challenges around decarbonizing the electric grid. In particular, regulators, consumers, stakeholders, and utilities recognize the need to carefully consider the role natural gas will play in a decarbonized future. A variety of technology and policy options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use are available, including energy efficiency programs, demand reduction tools, strategic electrification, and strategies to reduce emissions from natural gas production, transportation, and consumption. Low-carbon fuels – mainly renewable natural gas (RNG) and clean hydrogen – are being considered an important component of decarbonization goals. RNG and hydrogen may be able to meaningfully reduce emissions from processes independent of geologic natural gas, displacing emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Although RNG and hydrogen are not cost-competitive today with geologic natural gas and are smaller in scale and potential than other decarbonization options, they can be explored as potential critical tools to decarbonize sectors that are difficult to electrify or shift off of natural gas entirely, such as air travel, industrial processes, maritime transport, long-distance trucking, space heating on cold days, and railroads (Nadel, 2022). The role of this report is to provide informational context for state utility regulators to understand the impacts of and challenges associated with broader integration of low-carbon fuels, followed by examples of state regulatory actions taken to date to facilitate the development of low-carbon fuels. Setting clear guidance to calculate the environmental benefits of low-carbon fuels and continuing federal and state investments in research and development to reduce costs relative to fossil fuels will be important steps to take to signal the desire to grow the market for these fuels. State public utility commissions may play a key role in setting regulatory frameworks for low-carbon fuels and ensuring that ratepayer funds, if utilized, are done so to further the public interest. This report is intended to summarize decisions that states have made to date on low-carbon fuels. In the spirit of understanding the current market and sharing information, this report provides success stories, and lessons learned across states as regulators implement varying strategies to achieve decarbonization objectives while maintaining their focus on affordability, safety, and reliability of the energy system. The report begins with an introduction of the role of natural gas in the U.S. economy (Section I) and background information on natural gas use, decarbonization, and low-carbon fuels (Section II). Next, the report describes the current market by discussing the scale of current production, emissions intensity, resource potential, and costs of low-carbon fuels compared to geologic natural gas (Section III). Following these sections, the report describes four strategies states have employed to facilitate low-carbon fuels: opening exploratory dockets, approving voluntary tariffs for customers, approving interconnection tariffs for producers, and considering portfolio-wide procurement targets (Section IV). This section lists states that have taken actions in each category, citing utility filings, commission decisions, stakeholder comments, and other relevant sources. Finally, the report concludes with suggested questions regulators may wish to consider regarding low-carbon fuels, in the interest of preparing to make decisions in the future (Section V). These questions include: Are there existing regulatory or technical barriers to voluntary purchases of low-carbon fuels? Can customers work with utilities to procure low-carbon fuels; are producers able to interconnect projects without significant barriers to entry? Should the infrastructure and/or commodity costs of low-carbon fuels be socialized among all ratepayers, or borne solely by the large commercial and industrial (C&I) customers currently driving the market? Should regulated natural gas and/or electric utilities own and operate low-carbon fuel production? How should regulators consider the unique decarbonization potential of low-carbon fuels, particularly for hard-to-abate sectors, in decision-making? Is additional direction or clarity from state policymakers needed? What no-regrets approaches can help facilitate both near-term RNG development and long-term development of hydrogen and other zero-carbon fuels? We collectively wish to express our gratitude to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, for supporting this report and other technical assistance resources for state regulators on natural gas topics. State regulators operate under a variety of policy environments, and states have vastly different types of energy resources, infrastructure, and customers. While there is no optimal regulatory, policy, or technological solution that will be successful in every state, state regulators can benefit by exchanging lessons learned with their peers across the country. We look forward to continued engagement with our fellow commissioners, commission staff, NARUC, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other stakeholders to develop sound regulation in the public interest.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Storage Field Development Plan: One Earth Energy

This Storage Field Development plan presents the Storage Complex characterization results, construction, monitoring, and operational plans, and costs associated with the proposed One Earth Sequestration Carbon Capture and Storage (OES-CCS) site in McLean County, Illinois, near Gibson City. The proposed storage complex, known as the Mt. Simon Storage Complex, comprises the Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone reservoir and the primary seal, the Cambrian Eau Claire Formation. The lowermost Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) identified for the site is the Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone. Geologic characterization of the Mt. Simon Storage Complex at the OES-CCS site was performed by the Illinois Storage Corridor CarbonSAFE Phase III project, which also prepared and submitted three UIC Class VI applications to construct three injection wells; the permit applications were submitted and are in the federal EPA review process. A characterization well, OEE #1, was drilled to collect site-specific data. These data were analyzed and used to develop the UIC Class VI applications. The OEE #1 well will be converted to an in-zone monitoring (IZM) well for the injection phase. The proposed buildout for the OES-CCS site includes (1) three injection wells (OES #1, OES #2, and OES #3), (2) two IZM wells, (3) two above confining zone (ACZ) monitoring wells, one of which will be used to monitor the lowermost USDW, (4) capture and compression facilities, and (5) transportation facilities, i.e., pipelines. A pre-operational testing program was proposed in the Class VI permit application and will be employed at the site pending approval. Additional pre-injection (baseline), syn-injection, and post-injection monitoring and site care procedures will be followed by OES to ensure that injection activities are protective of human health and the environment. Injection is scheduled to begin in 2025, distributed across the three injection wells in accordance with the permit operating conditions. One Earth Sequestration intends to inject up to 90 million tonnes of CO 2 over a period of approximately 20 years. Injection will begin at approximately 0.5 million tonnes of CO 2 annually and ramp up to a maximum of 4.5 million tonnes annually. Daily injection rates are expected to range from 1,400 to 1,500 tonnes per day initially and reach a maximum of approximately 4,225 tonnes per day, depending on site geology and injectivity at each injection well location, and CO 2 availability. The costs associated with the OES-CCS project include pre-operational costs (e. g. additional seismic data acquisition and well drilling), capture and transportation facility and equipment costs, predicted field operating expenditures (OpEx), and decommissioning and post-injection site care (PISC) costs. The risks associated with project activities, such as site construction, injection operations, and verification of secure storage were evaluated, and mitigation strategies proposed to alleviate those risks.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗
DOE OSTI2025

DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP): A Metadata Framework for Advancing Interoperability and AI Readiness Across Scientific Repositories

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a diverse and distributed ecosystem of repositories that steward scientific data, publications, and software across its research programs, user facilities, and national laboratories. While significant progress has been made in standardizing dataset-level metadata, the metadata describing repositories themselves (their identity, governance, access interfaces, policies, and technical capabilities) remains inconsistent and fragmented across DOE-funded systems. This variability limits discoverability, interoperability, automated validation, and AI-driven analysis, all of which are increasingly essential for modern scientific workflows. To address this gap, the DOE Data Curation Working Group (DCWG) developed the DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP). The DRMP is a practical, community-driven framework that defines how repositories can describe themselves in a consistent, machine-actionable, and scalable manner. The DRMP is not a new metadata schema. Instead, it is a mapping profile and structured element set capturing the essential characteristics of DOE repositories. It harmonizes repository-level metadata across six widely adopted community schemas: RE3Data; DCAT-US v3; Schema.org; Dublin Core; DataCite 4.6; and PREMIS 3.0. This harmonization eliminates reinvention and enables interoperability within DOE and across the broader scientific ecosystem. A core objective of the DRMP is to reduce burden on repositories by allowing them to reuse their existing metadata through a Rosetta-style crosswalk rather than redesigning local implementations. The profile introduces a three-level conformance model that supports incremental adoption: • Level 1 – Minimum Viable Record (MVR): foundational identification elements required for workflows, project registration, and basic repository presence. • Level 2 – Interoperable: structured metadata enabling alignment with national and international discovery systems. • Level 3 – AI-Ready: enhanced provenance, policy transparency, fixity, semantic context, and capabilities that support automated reasoning, model training governance, and machine-assisted curation. To support implementation, the DRMP includes JSON Schema definitions, OpenAPI patterns, and MCP templates that allow repositories to publish machine-readable metadata directly within existing platforms. These resources are modular and lightweight, enabling adoption without major architectural change. Adopting the DRMP enables repositories to: • Enhance discoverability and interoperability by aligning identifiers, classifications, and descriptive elements across widely used schema standards. • Support federated discovery and cross-registration across DOE systems, Data.gov, and international catalogs. • Enable AI agents and workflow orchestration systems to interpret repository-level metadata within the American Science Cloud (AmSC) through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based context publication. • Demonstrate alignment with DOE’s open science, stewardship, and FAIR data priorities. This guidance represents a community-driven step forward. Through voluntary adoption and continued feedback, the DRMP advances a cohesive, machine-actionable description of DOE repositories that supports FAIR data practices, preparing the infrastructure for AI-enabled research, and strengthening the discoverability and reuse of DOE’s scientific outputs.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗