Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “office”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Proceedings of the 2021 Airborne Wind Energy Workshop

On March 2-3, 2021, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conducted a virtual workshop to evaluate the status, potential development, and technical viability of AWE systems as a source of energy in the United States. Stakeholder input provided at the workshop will contribute to the report to Congress. This report summarizes key workshop findings, current technology research and development activities in the United States, and opportunities and potential modes of collaboration and coordination for future technology research and development activities. The workshop focused on U.S. stakeholders in AWE, with approximately 100 experts and industry stakeholders from AWE technology developers, operators, engineering firms, consultants, government, national laboratories, and university researchers. The workshop began with an explanation from DOE's Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) Technology Manager, Ben Hallissy, of the context and purpose of the workshop, including a request from Congress that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) deliver a "report on the potential for, and technical viability of, airborne wind energy systems to provide a significant source of energy in the United States, including a summary of research, development, demonstration, and commercialization needs, including an estimate of Federal funding requirements, to further examine and validate the technical and economic viability of airborne wind energy concepts over the 10-year period." The workshop began with brief introductions from attendees who explained their interest in AWE. Nicolas El Hayek of Planair summarized the proceedings from the AWE workshop held in September 2020 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 11. This was followed by a presentation by Roland Schmehl of TU-Delft summarizing European AWE R&D efforts. Chris Vermillion of North Carolina State University and Jason Jonkman of NREL presented an overview of U.S. R&D efforts. Then five panelists discussed AWE markets, sizes of AWE systems, challenges, and opportunities. Panelists included: Cristina Archer, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment and associate director at the Center for Research in Wind (CReW) at the University of Delaware; Stephan Brabeck, chief technology officer at SkySails; Thierry Delahave, innovation and technology development lead at Saipem; Rob Creighton, founder and chief executive officer at WindLift; and David Schaefer, founder and chief executive officer at eWind Solutions. The second day of the workshop began with a brief overview of five key topics that are crucial to enabling AWE in the United States. These topics range from estimates of the U.S. wind resource, technical generation potential, economic analysis, environmental challenges, status of current technology and R&D activities, and needed activities to enable commercialization of AWE. This set the stage for a robust discussion in breakout groups where individuals could offer their opinions on the potential opportunities for AWE in the United States. The following topics were discussed in the breakout groups: resource potential and energy output, technical potential, social and environmental impacts, and permitting, techno-economic analysis and markets, technology assessment and upscaling and demonstration and commercialization needs. The second day concluded with reports by the NREL research team, communicating the key themes and outcomes from each of the breakout group discussions.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
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

United States Nuclear Data Program Annual Report for FY2021

The US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) summarizes the work of USNDP for the period of October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021, with respect to the Work Plan for FY21 that was prepared in 2019. The Work Plan and Final Report for USNDP are prepared for the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. The support for the nuclear data activity from sources outside the nuclear data program is described in the staffing table and in Appendix A. This leverage amounts to about 3.24 FTE scientific, to be compared with 25.095 FTEs at USNDP units funded by the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. Since it is often difficult to separate accomplishments funded by various sources, some of the work reported in the present report was accomplished with nuclear data program support leveraged by other funding.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
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

Valuing Resilience for Microgrids: Challenges, Innovative Approaches, and State Needs

The United States depends on the delivery of reliable, affordable, clean, and safe electricity. Electric utilities invest billions of dollars each year in generation, transmission, and distribution assets to meet this need. However, experiences with recent natural disasters of increasing frequency and duration demonstrate the shortcomings of this approach in the face of modern threats. Further, as customers rely on electricity for a broader range of important needs, such as transportation, as well as critical life-saving services and mission critical facilities such as water treatment, medical care, shelters, telecommunications, and more, the need to minimize the likelihood and impacts of outages grows. Against this backdrop, resilience has emerged as a key consideration to guide electricity spending, whether from utilities, customers, or taxpayers. Although reliability has been defined and measured for decades with broadly accepted metrics that measure how many customers lose power and at what frequency and duration, resilience considers the electricity system’s response to a disruption and its subsequent impacts on customers. Developing tools and methods to accurately assess the costs and benefits of resilience investments is a critical step toward the goal of mitigating the impacts of outages on customers and society. Today, electric system resilience is largely treated as an externality due to challenges estimating the costs of long-duration outages, impacts of outages on society, and increasing reliance on electricity for a growing set of interdependent services. These interdependencies include the water, wastewater, telecommunications, natural gas, and health sectors. Without knowing how much a given resilience investment will benefit customers or society more broadly, investors, policymakers, and regulators are less likely to make or approve such investments, and less able to prioritize those investments. State Energy Offices and public utility commissions (PUCs) lead the development of state-level energy policy and utility regulation, respectively, and each has interests in encouraging appropriate public and private investments in resilience. To this end, the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Electricity (OE), formed a joint Microgrids State Working Group to explore the costs and benefits of microgrids, barriers to broader deployment of microgrids to meet resilience and other objectives, and policy and regulatory strategies to optimize investments in resilience, including but not limited to microgrids. Although no universally accepted valuation tool for resilience exists, National Laboratories, utilities, researchers, and state and federal agencies have collaborated to develop, apply, and improve a number of approaches to quantify resilience, several of which are still in progress at the time this report is published. This report seeks to share these important advances by discussing current definitions of resilience (Section 1), how microgrids are defined and used to meet resilience objectives (Section 2), new approaches to valuing resilience (Section 3), steps State Energy Offices and PUCs have taken to further resilience valuation efforts (Section 4), and finally, considerations and suggested next steps for State Energy Offices and PUCs (Section 5). Relevant examples of specific microgrid projects and resilience valuation efforts are included throughout the report. While this report is written specifically for NASEO and NARUC members, it may be useful for utilities, local governments, and individual customers interested in improving the way public and private dollars are spent to achieve resilience outcomes.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Secure Storage: Historical Documentation of TA-08-0032, TA-11-0036, TA-22-0016, TA-22-0023, TA-22-0025, TA-22-0035, TA-37-0006, TA-37-0009, and TA-37-0020

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office (NA-LA), is pursuing the decommissioning and demolition (D&D) of facilities contaminated with high-explosives residues at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Laboratory or LANL). This effort affects nine facilities associated with high-explosives and detonator research, development, and storage: Technical Area (TA) 8 Facility 32 (TA-08-0032), TA-11-0036, TA-22-0016, TA-22-0023, TA-22-0025, TA-22-0035, TA-37-0006, TA-37-0009, and TA-37-0020. All nine facilities proposed for D&D have been evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and determined eligible. NA-LA previously requested the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to concur with the NRHP-eligibility determinations of these nine properties presented in four reports: (1) TA-08-0032 was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, From Ranching to Radiography: An Assessment of Historic Buildings at Anchor West Site (TA-8), Vol. 1 (McGehee et al. 2008a). The SHPO concurred with this eligibility determination on November 26, 2008. (2) TA-11-0036 was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, ESA Division’s Five-Year Plan: Consolidation and Revitalization at Technical Areas 3, 8, 11, and 16, Vol. 1) (McGehee et al. 2003). The SHPO concurred with this eligibility assessment on June 22, 2003. (3) TA-22-0016, TA-22-0023, TA-22-0025, and TA-22-0035 were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, DX Division’s Facility Strategic Plan: Consolidation and Revitalization at Technical Areas 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 22, 36, 39, 40, 60, and 69, Vol. 1 (McGehee et al. 2005a). The SHPO concurred with these eligibility determinations on April 18, 2006. (4) TA-37-0006, TA-37-0009, and TA-37-0020 were determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in the report, High Explosives and the Nuclear Stockpile: An Assessment of Historic Buildings at Magazine Area C (TA-37), Vol. 1 (McGehee et al. 2008b). The SHPO concurred with these eligibility determinations on April 17, 2008. In a letter dated January 24, 2020, NA-LA acknowledged that the D&D of these nine NRHP-eligible facilities was an adverse effect that requires resolution through mitigation. NA-LA proposed the use of standard mitigation practices as defined in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concerning Management of the Historic Properties at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The PA states that adverse effects to NRHP-eligible buildings and structures will be resolved according to the standard practices defined in Part II, Section 10, of the Laboratory’s Cultural Resources Management Plan, A Plan for the Management of the Cultural Heritage at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (Purtzer et al. 2019), and Section 2.B of Appendix D of the PA itself. The standard practice documentation package includes the following components: (1) Interior and exterior photography and production of archival-quality digital photographs; (2) Documentation and curation of historically significant equipment and artifacts; (3) A list of all known drawings for the property; (4) Reduced-scale reproductions of selected drawings for the property; (5) A location map that shows the location of the property relative to the entire Laboratory property; (6) Reproduction of historical TA maps; (7) A TA map that depicts the footprint of each eligible and non-eligible facility; and (8) An expanded historic context that uses oral-history interviews, if available. On March 3, 2020, the SHPO concurred with the adverse effect determination and the mitigation plan. The documentation package, as previously described, is provided in Volumes 1 and 2 of this report.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program Annual Report: Plan Year 2022-2023

The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program provides nearly $5 billion over 5 years to help states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as “states”) create a network of fast EV charging stations along designated Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs), with emphasis along the Interstate Highway System. The first-year deployment plans were submitted to and reviewed by the Joint Office and FHWA and certified by FHWA in September 2022. To support the rollout of the NEVI Formula Program, the Joint Office has been providing technical assistance to the states since February 2022 and has developed DriveElectric.gov to serve as the front door for federal efforts to build out a national charging network. This report summarizes the key activities of the Joint Office in relation to the NEVI program and provides an individual and collective overview of the first-year deployment plans. The Joint Office will utilize the summary of these plans to inform program improvement and future technical assistance activities to support the states as they begin to implement their EV charging infrastructure.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
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 OSTI2023

Report Series: Finding of Effect, and Mitigation Documentation for Building 23-702, 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 in the town of Mercury (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15278), which is on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada (see Figure 1). The purpose of the undertaking is related to the modernization of Mercury for future mission needs. The NNSA/NFO will implement this undertaking in accordance with the 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, hereafter referred to as the Mercury PA. Building 23-702 was built in 1965 as a foil handling building for the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL), who worked on the design and engineering of nuclear weapons and other nuclear experiments. The building appeared to have secondarily functioned as a storage for radioactive sources in the 1980s and 1990s. The building was operational until 2004, then deactivated sometime between 2005 and 2014. The town of Mercury and the immediate surrounding area have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register, NRHP) as the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230) under Criteria A and C for its importance in supporting nuclear testing and scientific research from 1951 through 1992. Building 23-702 was identified as a contributing element to the MHD in a 2018 architectural survey of the district (Reno et al.) and recorded on a Nevada Architectural Resource Assessment (ARA) form (Reno et al. 2017). Building 23-702 was also 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 compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

United States Nuclear Data Program Annual Report for FY 23

The US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) summarizes the work of USNDP for the period of October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023, with respect to the Work Plan for FY23 that was prepared in 2022. The Work Plan and Final Report for USNDP are prepared for the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. The support for the nuclear data activity from sources outside the nuclear data program is described in the staffing table and in Appendix A. This leverage amounts to about 17.4 FTE scientific, to be compared with 23.8 FTEs at USNDP units funded by the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. Since it is often difficult to separate accomplishments funded by various sources, some of the work reported in the present report was accomplished with nuclear data program support leveraged by other funding.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Finding Of Adverse Effect and Proposed Mitigation for the Removal of Joshua Trees at Building 23-210, 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) recently removed two fallen Joshua trees that were part of an Accessory Resource (AR) to the former Department of Defense (DOD) Motor Pool Maintenance Compound in Mercury (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. C307) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada (Figure 1). The Joshua trees were part of AR3, a landscaped feature at the entrance to the compound. There are two remaining Joshua trees at risk of falling which may require removal in the future. The NNSA/NFO is proactively consulting with the SHPO regarding the potential removal of the remaining two trees. The purpose of the undertaking is to ensure that dead or dying Joshua trees do not cause damage to the remaining landscape elements, nor injury to NNSS employees. The NNSA/NFO will implement this undertaking in accordance with the 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, hereafter referred to as the Mercury PA. Building 23-210 was the DOD’s motor vehicle maintenance compound constructed in 1951. The compound included its own repair shop and fuel station. The town of Mercury and the immediate surrounding area have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register, NRHP) as the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230) under Criteria A and C for their importance in supporting nuclear testing and scientific research from 1951 through 1992. The former DOD Motor Pool Compound was identified as a contributing element to the MHD in a 2018 architectural survey of the district (Reno et al. 2018) and recorded on a Nevada Architectural Resource Assessment (ARA) form (Reno et al. 2017). The foundation for Building 23-210 was also identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category III contributing element with three contributing ARs. Category III properties are those that may include elements for which there are several representatives in the MHD, such as foundations, and those elements which possess characteristics that are not unique to the MHD and are commonly found in other non-NNSS facilities. The former DOD compound, which is identified by the foundation for the Building 23-210 and its ARs, is a historic property for the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Project Assessment for Biological and Environmental Research: Report from the BER Advisory Committee

The construction, operation, and stewardship of large-scale scientific user facilities and cutting edge capabilities have been integral to the mission of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science from its earliest days. To help identify and prioritize new or upgraded facilities critical to scientific innovation over the next 10 years, the Office of Science director issued a charge to the federal advisory committees of six of its program offices in December 2023, including the Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program. The charge letter (see p. ii) asked the advisory committees to: 1. Consider what new or upgraded facilities will be necessary to position the Office of Science at the forefront of scientific discovery. 2. Deliver a short letter report describing each facility in terms of two criteria: (a) the potential to contribute to world-leading science in the next decade and (b) the readiness for construction.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest (Final Technical Report)

The primary goal of the “An Energy Codes Gap Analysis Field Study in the Southwest” project was to improve housing through strengthened building energy code implementation in two states, Colorado and Nevada, leading to greater energy and utility bill savings for households. Colorado is a home rule state. Nevada adopts a statewide code, but cities and counties must also adopt the code, making the state function like a home rule state. To broaden the impact of the project, an additional goal was to share and amplify project experiences, findings, and lessons that can be applied in other states. To achieve these goals, the project’s key objectives were to examine how residential energy codes are implemented in partner states; to use these findings to strengthen codes implementation through enhanced education, training, and outreach; and to enhance energy code technical assistance capabilities in the two partner states. In both partner states, the project led to the creation of a quantitative baseline understanding of compliance with high-impact energy code requirements, such as foundation, wall, and ceiling R-value; window U-factor and SHGC; envelope air tightness; duct tightness; and high-efficiency lighting. It then applied this baseline information to directly inform training in geographic areas with high levels of building and construction activity. The project has placed Colorado and Nevada among 23 states across the country that have conducted a single-family residential field study based on the established U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) methodology since 2014. It has also helped each State Energy Office test models for partnership- and relationship-building among government agencies and key stakeholder groups, including the State Energy Office and relevant code administration and professional licensing agencies, building officials, designers, builders, trades and utilities. At the national level, the project helped educate and inform State and Territory Energy Offices on a replicable methodology to assess energy code construction practices, effective stakeholder engagement strategies, and tailored energy code education and training. These findings are particularly pertinent for home-rule states, such as Colorado and Nevada, which rely on local government awareness and action to advance and implement building energy codes. By raising awareness of code adoption and compliance, this project has helped to equip each partner state with data on code compliance, strategies, education, and partnership models to advance building energy codes. This in turn will have an important impact on new construction practices in Colorado and Nevada, leading to more energy efficient and affordable housing. Currently, more than 62 percent of Colorado’s population lives in one of the 55 jurisdictions that have adopted the 2021 IECC to date, while nearly 95 percent of the state's population lives in one of the 208 jurisdictions that have adopted a code at 2015 IECC levels or higher. In Nevada, the 2018 IECC was adopted by the Governor’s Office of Energy in July 2018. By July 2020, 47 percent of the adopted energy code in the state was 2018 IECC which covers 96.5 percent of Nevada’s population. The training materials funded by this project focus on the 2021 IECC and will continue to be relevant in the two states as additional jurisdictions update their building energy codes.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

United States Nuclear Data Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024

The US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) summarizes the work of USNDP for the period of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024, with respect to the Work Plan for FY24 that was prepared in 2022. The Work Plan and Final Report for USNDP are prepared for the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. The support for the nuclear data activity from sources outside the nuclear data program is described in the staffing table and in Appendix A. This leverage amounts to about 14.8 FTE scientific, to be compared with 13.9 FTEs at USNDP units funded by the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. Since it is often difficult to separate accomplishments funded by various sources, some of the work reported in the present report was accomplished with nuclear data program support leveraged by other funding.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

High Energy Physics Network Requirements Review: Final Report, July 2024–December 2024

The world-class research infrastructure at the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC) provides the research community with premier observational, experimental, computational, and network capabilities. Each user facility is designed to provide unique capabilities to advance the core DOE mission in science and technology for its SC program to stimulate rich scientific discoveries and enhance its innovation ecosystem. Research communities gather and flourish around each user facility, bringing together new and enhanced perspectives. The continual reinvention of the practice of science — as users and staff forge novel approaches expressed in research workflows — unlocks new discoveries and propels scientific progress. Within this research ecosystem, the high-performance computing (HPC) and networking user facilities stewarded by the SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program play a dynamic cross-cutting role, enabling complex workflows demanding high-performance data, networking, and computing solutions. The ASCR facilities enterprise seeks to understand and meet the needs and requirements across SC and DOE domain science programs and priority efforts, highlighted by the formal requirements review methodology. Between July and December 2024, the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) and the Office of High Energy Physics (HEP) of the DOE-SC organized an ESnet requirements review of HEP-supported program activities. Preparation for these events included identification of key stakeholders: program and facility management, research groups, and technology providers. Each stakeholder group was asked to prepare formal case study documents about its relationship to the HEP program to build a complete understanding of the current, near-term, and long-term status, expectations, and processes that will support the science going forward.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2026

United States Nuclear Data Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025

The US Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2025 summarizes the work of USNDP for the period of October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025, with respect to the Work Plan for FY 2025 that was prepared in 2024. The Work Plan and Final Report for USNDP are prepared for the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. The support for the nuclear data activity from sources outside the US Nuclear Data Program is summarized in the staffing table and Appendix A. This leverage amounts to about 22.8 FTE scientific, to be compared with 21.9 FTEs at USNDP units funded by the DOE Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics. Since it is often difficult to separate accomplishments funded by various sources, some of the work reported in the present report was accomplished with nuclear data program support leveraged by other funding. FY 2025 was the 25th year in which the USNDP has operated under a Work Plan developed by the program participants. The program continued to carry out important work in support of the DOE mission. The work balances the ongoing collecting, analyzing, and archiving of nuclear physics information critical to basic nuclear research and to the development and improvement of nuclear technologies with the electronic distribution of this information to users in a timely and easily accessible manner. The present section of the report consists of activity summaries for the major components of the USNDP. This is followed by an updated staff level assignment table that reflects the final distribution of effort among the tasks carried out during FY 2025. Then, we continue with the detailed status of work performed during FY 2025.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Water Management Area (WMA) Shapefiles

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - No changes v1.0 - Initial public release Description Borders of all Water Management Areas (WMAs) across the 11 western-most states of the coterminous United States are available filtered through a single source. The legal name for this set of boundaries varies state-by-state. The data is provided as two compressed shapefiles. One, stateWMAs, contains data for all 11 states. For 10 of those states, Arizona being the exception, the polygons represent the legal management boundaries used by those states to manage their surface and groundwater resources respectively. WMAs refer to the set of boundaries a particular state uses to manage its water resources. Each set of boundaries was collected from the states individually, and then merged into one spatial layer. The merging process included renaming some columns to enable merging with all other source layers, as well as removing columns deemed not required for followup analysis. The retained columns for each boundary are: basinNum - the state provided unique numerical ID; basinName - the state provided English name of the area, where applicable; state - the state name; and uniID - a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID. Arizona is unique within this collection of states in that surface and groundwater resources are managed using two separate sets of boundaries. During our followup analysis (Grogan et al., in review) we decided to focus on one set of boundaries, those for surface water. This is due to the recommendation of our hydrologists that the surface water boundary set is a more realist representation of how water moves across the landscape, as a few of the groundwater boundaries are based on political and/or economic considerations. Therefore, the Arizona surface WMAs are included within stateWMAs. The Arizona groundwater WMAs are provided as a separate file, azGroundWMAs, as a companion to the first file for completeness and general reference. WMA spatial boundary data sources by state: Arizona: Arizona Surface Water Watersheds; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/surface-watershed/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 Arizona: Arizona Ground Water Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://gisdata2016-11-18t150447874z-azwater.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/groundwater-basin-2/explore?location=34.158174%2C-111.970823%2C7.50 California: California CalWater 2.2.1; Collected February, 2020; https://www.mlml.calstate.edu/mpsl-mlml/data-center/data-entry-tools/data-tools/gis-shapefile-layers/ Colorado: Colorado Water District Boundaries; Collected February, 2020; https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdss/gis-data-category Idaho: Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Administrative Basins; Collected November, 2015; https://data-idwr.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/fb0df7d688a04074bad92ca8ef74cc26_4/explore?location=45.018686%2C-113.862284%2C6.93 Montana: Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Office of Information Technology (OIT) Nevada: Nevada State Engineer Admin Basin Boundaries; Collected April, 2020 https://ndwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=1364d0c3a0284fa1bcd90f952b2b9f1c New Mexico: New Mexico Office of the State Engineer (OSE) Declared Groundwater Basins; Collected April, 2020 https://geospatialdata-ose.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ose-declared-groundwater-basins/explore?location=34.179783%2C-105.996542%2C7.51 Oregon: Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Administrative Basins; Collected February, 2020; https://www.oregon.gov/OWRD/access_Data/Pages/Data.aspx Utah: Utah Adjudication Books; Collected April, 2020; https://opendata.gis.utah.gov/datasets/utahDNR::utah-adjudication-books/explore?location=39.497165%2C-111.587782%2C-1.00 Washington: Washington Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA); Collected June, 2017; https://ecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Data Wyoming: Wyoming State Engineer's Office Board of Control Water Districts; Collected June, 2019; Directly contacted Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of LEU fuels to support the high-performance reactors. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel. The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR. The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-licensed reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗