Results for “STANDARDIZATION” — Page 18

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for South Carolina

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for South Dakota

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Tennessee

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Codes and Standards Assessment for Hydrogen Blends into the Natural Gas Infrastructure

Energy utilities are evaluating emerging energy technologies to reduce reliance on carbon as an energy carrier. Hydrogen has been identified as a potential substitute for carbon-based fuels that can be blended into other gaseous energy carriers, such as natural gas. However, hydrogen blending into natural gas has important implications on safety which need to be evaluated. Designers and installers of systems that utilize hydrogen gas blending into natural gas distribution systems need to adhere to local building codes and engage with the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for safety and permitting approvals. These codes and standards must be considered to understand where safety gaps might be apparent when injecting hydrogen into the natural gas infrastructure. This report generates a list of relevant codes and standards for hydrogen blending on existing, upgraded, or new pipelines. Additionally, a preliminary assessment was made to identify the codes and standards that need to be modified to enable this technology as well as potential gaps due to the unique nature and safety concerns of gaseous hydrogen.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Modeling Summary of ASNF in DOE Sealed Standard Canisters

A pathway for road-ready and final disposition packaging configurations for the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ANSF) fuel dictates storage within helium backfilled sealed DOE standard canisters. The typical packaging configuration for the 15-foot DOE canisters places 10 advance test reactor (ATR) elements within a Type 1a basket, and three baskets are loaded within each DOE canister. During in-reactor operations and cooling pond storage conditions, oxyhydroxide layers form on the surface of the aluminum clad fuel. These layers produce hydrogen gas over time due to the fuel’s radiation field. As part of the packing procedure, the ATR fuel should be dried to remove any residual physio-/chemi- sorbed water bound to the surface. The results of this modeling will include results at fully saturated and fully dried conditions. In addition, fuels that are currently stored at the Savannah River Site were also studied for their potential for hydrogen and pressure build up. These two additional fuels modeled were the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) fuel, which is packaged in the same configuration as the ATR, but with a 10-foot-tall DOE standard canister. This was selected due to its relatively high decay heat compared to other DOE-managed ASNF. The second additional fuel studied with the modeling effort was the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) fuel. This fuel is modeled as two separate DOE canisters with the inner and outer annulus split for storage. The HFIR was selected for study due to its high aluminum cladding surface area. In the associated experimental work, Task 2 - Oxyhydroxide Layer Radiolytic Gas Generation Resolution, additional tests were completed in a helium environment, and updated G-values for the radiolytic production of hydrogen from the oxyhydroxide layers were provided. These values were 2.92 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 50% relative humidity and 4.12 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 100% relative humidity. These values are lower than the value for Argon that was used in prior modeling results. In addition, prior modeling results have been completed with the G-value applied to just the mass of the corrosion layer, and this has been updated to apply the G-value for hydrogen generation to the full mass of the fuel. These two effects combine to show much smaller pressure and hydrogen build up for the sealed canister model. For a nominal scenario of stored ATR fuel, after 50 years the model results give a 1.36 atm total pressure, 7% mole percent hydrogen, for the upper decay heat, 1.51 atm total pressure, 16% mole percent hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel 2.6 atm total pressure, 15% mole percent hydrogen. For the MURR nominal case, the model results give 1.34 atm and 6% hydrogen, for upper decay heat this gives 1.41 atm total pressure with 10.8 % hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel, this gives 2.38 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen. The nominal scenario for HFIR fuel gives 1.39 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen, the upper decay heat case gives 1.43 atm with 12.1% hydrogen, and the upper decay heat with undried fuel gives 2.17 atm total pressure with 11.9% hydrogen. These results confirm the ATR scenario bounds the other intact ASNF modeled here. No case modeled yields significant oxygen, and the lower decay heat cases for all fuels modeled have hydrogen concentrations that are under the 4% flammability limit after 50 years of storage. In addition, the modeled pressures for all cases are all significantly below the 500-psi limit for the DOE standard sealed canister.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Utah

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Vermont

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Virginia

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for West Virginia

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Wisconsin

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Wyoming

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Restoration Hydro: A Watershed Approach to Standard Modular New Hydropower

The objectives of FOA DE- FOA-0001836- “Standard Modular Hydropower” included designing a standardized, modular, and environmentally compatible hydropower schematic for implementation in greenfield sites that generate up to 10 MW of capacity. Utilizing funds competitively awarded under DOE’s Water Power Technologies Office, the Natel Energy team developed a concept for modular new stream reach (NSR) hydropower that incorporates multi species upstream and downstream fish passage, improved river channel connectivity, and recreational modules. The in-stream design of the collective modules minimized site specific design and maximized the opportunities for modularity. Financial data was also presented using actual costs from regional suppliers, with figures provided in 2022 dollars. While the project team did not address potential permitting process improvements, the site selection criteria did consider established barriers to hydropower development such as tribal and preserved lands, interconnection proximity, and endangered species to exclude or deprioritize. The project’s design schematic met the objectives of the FOA, and presented a unique solution that targets alluvial pockets as natural features for sustainable development. Natel’s concept also incorporated the company's fish-safe Restoration Hydro Turbine for safe downstream passage, while featuring a rock arch that integrates fish passage, water, recreation, and grade control modules (including sediment). Alignment with the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) “Innovative Design Concepts for Standard Modular Hydropower and Pumped-Storage Hydropower” Program: According to the Hydropower Vision (DOE, 2016), approximately 16 GW of hydropower growth is possible with the development of technology solutions that balance efficiency, economics, and environmental sustainability. The desired outcome of the SMH program is transformational innovation specifically in the site identification, conceptual, and detailed design phases of technology development lifecycles (DOE, 2018). In developing the SMH design schematic, the team aimed to address the opportunities outlined in the Vision through an inverted design philosophy; rather than singularly prioritizing efficiency and power production, the team focused on integrating hydropower with restoration of degraded streams to optimal ecosystem function and provision of exceptional recreation value as design criteria. To achieve this, Restoration Hydro incorporates the principles of nature-based engineering (WWAP, 2018) and biomimicry (Biomimicry NL.) to strategically deploy complementary combinations of permanent, semi-permanent, and ephemeral low-head structures - such as natural and engineered log jams - that harness geomorphological and hydrological processes at the landscape-scale. Primary applications of Restoration Hydro include: 1) restoration of degraded watersheds’ natural ecological function and enhancement of hydrological connectivity; and 2) creation of associated co-benefits to hydro production, including increased groundwater recharge, improved sediment transport and management, improved water security and water quality. Restoration Hydro projects build upon proven watershed restoration engineering techniques by integrating hydropower turbines into low-head structures using innovative and evolving civil works concepts that facilitate fish and sediment passage, and in some cases create additional revenue-generating recreational opportunities. Powering low-head structures creates a directly monetizable layer of economic value in the form of flexible, reliable, renewable energy on top of the already high-value water, environmental and recreational benefits of watershed and river restoration. The approach aims to create a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle whereby Restoration Hydro projects support the scaling of ecosystem restoration activities, creating a water-energy-carbon multiplier effect that, through the principles of adaptive change management: 1) improves the resilience of landscapes and downstream population centers for changing hydrological cycles; 2) creates a reliable energy resource that facilitates the integration of intermittent renewable power sources into grids; and 3) supports climate change mitigation through grid decarbonization and enhanced ecosystem carbon capture and retention.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Adequacy and Completeness of Standards Endorsed by Regulatory Guides to Molten Salt Reactors

The benefits of using voluntary consensus standards and industry guidance documents and reports are evident in the design and licensing of the current generation of nuclear power plants. The use of voluntary consensus standards and industry guidance and reports facilitates the design and licensing of advanced reactors to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the licensing and regulation of non-light-water reactor (non-LWR) technologies. Most of the regulations, guidance, and standards applicable to nuclear power plants were developed for water-cooled plants, so they may not adequately address factors such as the coolants, materials, temperatures, operations, testing, and maintenance proposed for advanced reactors.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Regulations, Codes, and Standards Review for Underground Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen continues to show promise as a viable contributor to achieving energy storage goals such as energy security and decarbonization in the United States. However, many new and expanded hydrogen use applications will require identifying methods of larger-scale storage than the solutions that currently exist for smaller storage applications. One possibility is to store large quantities of gaseous hydrogen below ground level. Underground storage of other fuels such as natural gas is already currently utilized, so much of the infrastructure and basic technologies can be used as a basis for underground hydrogen storage (UHS). A few commercial UHS facilities currently exist in the United States, including salt caverns owned and operated by Air Liquide, Linde, and Conoco Philips, but UHS is still a relatively new concept that has not been widely deployed. It is necessary to understand the safety risks and hazards associated with UHS before its use can be expanded and accepted more broadly. Many of these risks are addressed through regulations, codes, and standards (RCS) issued by governing bodies and organizations with expertise in certain hazards. This report is a review of RCS documents relevant to UHS, with a particular lens on potential technical gaps in existing guidance. These gaps may be specific to the physical properties of hydrogen or due to the different technologies relevant for hydrogen vs. natural gas storage. This is meant to be a high-level review to identify relevant documents and potential gaps. Formally addressing the individual gaps identified here within the codes and standards themselves would involve a more intensive analysis and differ based on the code or standard revision processes of the various publishing organizations. Therefore, presenting specific recommendations for revising the verbiage of the documents for UHS applications is left for future work and other publications.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2024

Oxygen Limit for Flammability of a Gas Mixture of Helium – Hydrogen – Oxygen in the U.S. Department of Energy Standard Canister

The radiolytic breakdown of residual free, physisorbed, and chemisorbed waters is anticipated in the sealed dry storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), releasing H 2 gas into the initial cover gas of helium. For aluminum-clad SNF (ASNF) in particular, the expected total hydrogen in the canister is enough to dominate the cover gas mixture if fully released, and based on experimental rates of H 2 generation, H 2 percentages exceeding the lower flammability limit appear likely. However, no evidence of radiolytic generation of O 2 has been observed to date, so the potential for flammability is averted due to the lack O 2 . Lack of oxygen has been credited for avoiding flammability in some existing storage and transportation approaches for SNF and other waste. This report reviews literature on flammability limits with a focus on the limiting oxygen concentration to provide technical underpinnings to refine a flammability criterion for gas mixtures of helium, hydrogen, and oxygen where the oxygen is expected to be the limiting species. While there is general consensus on H 2 flammability limits at standard temperature and pressure, the decay heat and gas generation within ASNF sealed dry storage canisters could push them to elevated temperatures and pressures, so the goal is to identify an oxygen threshold that will bound the behavior over the temperature and pressure range of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Standard Canister. The information reviewed in this document supports the criterion that the oxygen concentration in a He-H 2 -O 2 mixture should be less than 1.5% to avoid flammability at temperatures and pressures relevant to sealed dry storage of ASNF in the DOE Standard Canister, i.e., up to 343°C (650°F) and 500 psig, respectively. Note that while data covering the full range of temperature at atmospheric pressure and nearly the full range of pressure at room temperature were available, data for the combined effects was available only at moderate temperatures and pressures; the recommended 1.5% O 2 threshold is based on the breadth of available data reported here and apparent trends therein.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

FY24 Efforts to Revive the ANS-54.8 Liquid Metal Fire Protection in LMR Plants Standard

The U.S. has Designed, constructed, and operated several sodium fast reactors (SFRs). To support these efforts and to document best practices, activities associated with the development of standards and consensus standards were carried out, however the vast majority of those SFR standards are currently in a withdrawn or inactive status.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Commercial Building Prototypes Based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 Appendix G PRM: Technical Support Document

The two paths for documenting compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 are the prescriptive path and the performance path. Beyond code programs and rating systems (for example, USGBC-LEED ) are primarily known to use a third path – the Appendix G Performance Rating Method. An update in the 2016 edition of Standard 90.1 approved the Appendix G Performance Rating System for code compliance, extending its application and allowing for greater consistency of modeling rules for code and beyond code building energy modeling. The Appendix G PRM provides rules for the development of whole building energy models of baseline and proposed models for calculating the “performance cost index target” value using the simulated energy results of the baseline and proposed models and the building performance factors published in Table 4.2.1.1 of the Standard. This report documents (1) the methodology used for development of the baseline and proposed energy models of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy commercial building prototypes using the Appendix G Performance Rating Method; and (2) the building performance factors that were calculated using those models.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2025

NEPATEC v2.0: Standardized Metadata and Text Corpus of National Environmental Policy Act Documents

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), is a major environmental law in the United States, requiring Federal agencies to consider and document potential environmental impacts before deciding on a proposed action. Modernization of NEPA and permitting processes faces significant challenges due to the lack of standardized formats and interoperable systems for organizing and sharing NEPA-related information across agencies. Much of the information gathered during NEPA reviews is written into documents such as categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements, then filed in predominately independent agency file stores that may or may not be publicly accessible. The application of metadata and data standards, such as those recommended by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to NEPA documents offers a shared vocabulary and structure for key entities like projects, processes, and documents that can streamline information exchange and enhance collaboration across systems. In this work, we publicly release NEPATEC2.0, an expanded corpus of NEPA documents with associated metadata. NEPATEC2.0 encompasses approximately 120,000 documents from 60,000 projects prepared by more than 60 different agencies. Modeled to align with CEQ metadata standards, NEPATEC2.0 promotes consistency in environmental reviews and supports the ongoing effort to modernize permitting technologies by facilitating more transparent, efficient, and data-driven decision-making. Importantly, NEPATEC2.0 demonstrates the possibilities and limitations of large language model-based prompting to extract information from NEPA documents at scale.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗