Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Building Energy Codes 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.

32 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

stor4build

The EnergyPlus simulation engine supports modeling and simulation of thermal energy storage (TES) systems in several ways, including using the Python-EMS feature, which extends the operation of the engine with custom code written in Python. Creation of models using this feature can be tedious and error prone, with the connection of the model components to the Python code a particularly troublesome area. The stor4build Python package simplifies this process by modifying an input model to add a selected TES technology (implemented with the Python-EMS feature) and runs the simulation. The package leverages the OpenStudio middleware software development kit to automate this process as much as possible, eliminating potential errors and simplifying usage of EnergyPlus. The package provides objects, functions, and OpenStudio measures that implement the necessary operations to automate the creation of EnergyPlus models that integrate TES technologies with building systems. In addition, two user interfaces are provided: a command line interface and a web application programming interface. The automated process implemented by the package greatly simplifies the modeling and simulation process, allowing for parametric studies to be executed much more efficiently and effectively. The OpenStudio-based workflow is also very flexible and will allow for future additions of new technologies.

DeGraw, JasonWilliam [Oak Ridge National Laborator↗
DOE OSTI2024

Initial Development of Fusion Magnet Simulation Capabilities for Performance and Safety Evaluation Using the MOOSE Framework

Fusion energy holds the promise of being a transformative technology as a carbon-neutral, sustainable source of energy. Whole device modeling and the development of fusion digital twins will be increasingly important for emerging fusion device concepts at both national laboratories and within the commercial fusion industry. However, meeting the challenge of whole device modeling of fusion energy devices requires robust, multiphysics, multiscale modeling and simulation technologies capable of running on large-scale supercomputers. Detailed analysis of individual systems at-scale is also required to ensure safe and efficient operation as well as provide the safety basis for future device designs and licensing activities. In a tokamak, toroidal and poloidal magnets confine and shape the fusion plasma to promote the fusion reaction. High plasma temperatures and high magnetic field requirements in modern design concepts (leading to high amounts of energy stored within each magnet) impose electrical, thermal, and mechanical loads on the magnet components, which in turn impacts the safety considerations of the magnet and their supporting systems. Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has a history of working in this space, including development and benchmarking of the Magnetic System Circuitry Analysis Program (MSCAP) and Magnet Arcing (MAGARC) codes to study magnet quench events; notably, MAGARC was used to study quenching during the ITER Engineering Design Activity. However, these legacy codes and capabilities are not parallel and scalable, and new tools are required for future advances in this area, which leads to the INL-developed Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) framework. Developed originally for fission reactor systems under United States Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy modeling and simulation programs, the MOOSE framework has been well-suited to multiscale, multiphysics modeling and simulation needs for nuclear systems. The framework is open-source, well-tested, under continuous development and deployment, and developed to a Nuclear Quality Assurance, Level 1 software quality standard. MOOSE has also been used in the fusion space previously in several projects: INL’s Tritium Migration Analysis Program, Version 8 (TMAP8) for tritium migration, UK Atomic Energy Authority’s A Unified Resource for OpenMC (fusion) Reactor Applications (AURORA) code for fusion thermo-mechanical and neutronics analysis, and Argonne National Laboratory’s Cardinal for high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics and neutronics. However, to model superconducting magnets, several MOOSE enhancements are required: additions to the current MOOSE electromagnetic capabilities, new material libraries for superconductors of interest (such as YBCO), as well as fusion-specific models for thermo-mechanics. This talk will discuss initial development activities to build these capabilities in MOOSE, focusing on initial validation and benchmarking activities. Proposed coupling workflows and future work to support the simulation of fusion magnets and magnet structural assemblies for performance and safety evaluation in MOOSE will also be discussed.

70 - PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

EMPOWERED Distributed Energy Resources Permit Accelerator Pilot

This report summarizes the EMPOWERED Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Permit Accelerator Pilot project. Its primary objective was to streamline the design, installation, permitting, and inspections of targeted Distributed Energy Resource (DER) solutions. Streamlining these processes is critical to strengthening and accelerating the adoption of DER solutions nationwide. Moreover, streamlined processes help expedite the clean energy transition and expand energy resilience by improving understanding and capability among key stakeholders like property owners, code officials, and the general workforce. The project team accomplished this by developing and deploying a set of design and permitting guides for simple DER solutions, which they rolled out via a permitting pilot program. The project team developed nine permitting and inspection guides for simple DER solutions, as follows: 1. Single-Family and Duplex: Electric Vehicle Service Equipment (EVSE), and Storage, Solar + Storage (each in two code cycles) 2. Multi-family and Office: EVSE, Storage, Solar + Storage (each in two code cycles) 3. A permitting process guide to support the implementation of the permitting guides. The guides cover key code requirements via plan review and field inspection checklists for code officials and building owners to follow to streamline the permitting and inspections process for DER solutions. Following the development of the initial set of guides, the project team formed two cohorts, each made up of four jurisdictions, to participate in the Permit Accelerator Pilot. Each cohort received training and technical assistance to support them in incorporating the guides into use. The project successfully engaged jurisdictions in two disparate US regions: Chelsea, Somerville, Natick, and Norwood in metro Boston; and Pima County, Town of Gilbert, Flagstaff, and Sedona in Arizona. Feedback gathered from the project was valuable in refining the guides to better address jurisdictional needs. After the pilot period, the project team developed final versions of the guides based on extensive feedback from the cohorts and from external technical peer review. Feedback included needs and barriers related to implementation, as well as detailed technical improvements from external peer review. The final guides were presented in a series of webinars with a national reach, with 192 attendees from 35 states in the live session of the final webinar, and the final guides are posted online and available for use nationwide. Key findings: • The most receptive jurisdictions were those adjacent to other jurisdictions that had already adopted similar initiatives. The least receptive jurisdictions were those in the midst of adopting new code cycles. • The most common barrier to jurisdictional adoption of new guidelines were internal administrative and process delays, more so than technical barriers. • The main technical barrier to adoption proved to be the concern of fire hazard risks posed by energy storage systems. There is some apprehension in the code enforcement community about the safety of the batteries. Education coordinated with fire and safety services will help alleviate concerns and increase confidence in the acceptance of innovative technologies. • Opportunities to further leverage and advance the guides and related resources include outreach, education, and jurisdictional support; updates to the resources to align with code cycle changes and local requirements; and advancements supporting emerging technologies.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Status of New Models Hosted on the Virtual Test Bed (VTB) in 2024

The National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) mission is to support deployment of novel reactor concepts. This is achieved by providing physical and virtual spaces for building and testing various components, systems, and complete pilot plants. The Virtual Test Bed (VTB) represents the virtual counterpart to the physical test bed. It is in development in collaboration with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program. The mission of the VTB is to accelerate the deployment and licensing of advanced reactors by leveraging state-of-the-art modeling and simulation (M&S) tools developed by the DOE NEAMS program. This is accomplished by three primary means: (1) openly hosting simulations that showcase analysis capabilities, (2) continuously testing the models hosted against code updates to avoid deprecation, and (3) filling key M&S gaps that are relevant for the physical NRIC test beds. The VTB repository consists of two sub-entities: 1. A documentation website detailing the models (https://mooseframework.inl.gov/virtual_test_bed). 2. A GitHub repository that hosts the corresponding files (https://github.com/idaholab/virtual_test_bed). Previous documentation on the models hosted in the VTB can be found in [1,2,3,4]. These references also include additional background information on the various NEAMS codes showcased in the VTB (which is omitted here for brevity). This paper primarily provides a status update of the most recent additions to the repository.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Infrastructure improvements in the National Reactor Innovation Center Virtual Test Bed

The National Reactor Innovation Center’s (NRIC) mission is to support deployment of novel reactor concepts. This is achieved by providing physical and virtual spaces for building and testing various components, systems, and complete pilot plants. The Virtual Test Bed (VTB) represents the virtual counterpart to the physical test bed. The VTB is being developed in collaboration with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program. The mission of the VTB is to accelerate the deployment and licensing of advanced reactors by leveraging state-of-the-art modeling and simulation (M&S) tools developed by the DOE NEAMS program. This is accomplished via three primary means: (1) openly hosting simulations that showcase analysis capabilities, (2) continuously testing the models hosted against code updates to avoid deprecation, and (3) filling key M&S gaps that are relevant for the physical NRIC test beds. The VTB repository consists of two sub-entities: • A documentation website detailing the models: https://mooseframework.inl.gov/virtual_test_bed • A GitHub repository that hosts the corresponding files: https://github.com/idaholab/virtual_test_bed. This paper presents the infrastructure added to the VTB in the last two fiscal years. Additional information about the VTB can be found in various publications [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Integrating Energy-Efficient Computing with Computational Research to Accelerate Energy Technology

NREL's computational sciences center hosts the largest high performance computing (HPC) capabilities dedicated to energy research while functioning as a living laboratory for energy-efficient computing. NREL's HPC capabilities support the research needs of the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). In ten years of operation, HPC use in EERE-sponsored research has grown by a factor of 30, including work in electricity generation, energy efficiency, transportation, and energy system modeling. This paper analyzes this research portfolio, providing examples of individual use cases. The paper documents NREL's history of operating one of the world's most energy-efficient data centers while examining pathways to reduce economic and environmental impact beyond reduction of Power Usage Efficiency (PUE). This paper concludes by examining the unique opportunities created for accelerating improvements in data center efficiency created by combining an HPC system dedicated to energy research and a research program in energy-efficient computing.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

GPR_calculator: An on-the-fly surrogate model to accelerate massive nudged elastic band calculations

We present GPR_calculator, a package based on Python and C++ programming languages to build an on-the-fly surrogate model using Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) to approximate computationally expensive electronic structure calculations. The key idea is to dynamically train a GPR model during the simulation that can accurately predict energies and forces with uncertainty quantification. When the uncertainty is high, the costly electronic structure calculation is performed to obtain the ground truth data, which is then used to update the GPR model. To illustrate the effectiveness of GPR_calculator, we demonstrate its application in Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) simulations of surface diffusion and reactions, achieving 3-10 times acceleration compared to pure ab initio calculations. The source code is available at https://github.com/MaterSim/GPR_calculator.

Gaussian process regression↗
DOE OSTI2025

Demonstration of a Novel Technology to Manage Electricity Demand in Grid-Independent Military Microgrids

This research was conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in collaboration with the S&C Electric Inc. through funding provided by the ESTCP. The project demonstrates use of cybersecure Automated Demand Response (ADR) technology to effectively manage microgrid loads during grid-independent, also known as "islanded," operation. When military microgrids become isolated from the main electrical grid, they are required to balance electricity supply and demand locally. Given that local generation may be constrained, the prevailing strategy involves shedding all but the most critical loads by tripping smart circuit breakers, which then necessitate manual resetting. This approach is generally implemented at the building level, which means that the buildings with mission-critical activities are exempt from load management and remain fully powered, whereas those deemed non-critical can experience a complete loss of service. In this research we developed a method that allows building automation systems to selectively control their assets in response to load shedding request from a microgrid controller, avoiding total loss of service in contrast to the conventional control approach. A commercial OpenADR client server by GridFabric is used for communication between the microgrid controller and the building management system (BMS). The microgrid controller monitors both generation capacity and various assets within the microgrid and issues a demand reduction request when necessary. This request is communicated to the OpenADR server via Modbus. Upon receiving the request, the OpenADR server forwards it to the BMS utilizing the OpenADR protocol. The BMS is pre-configured with various levels of load reduction strategies based on the controllable assets available, allowing for a nuanced approach to demand reduction. Both lab and field tests were performed that considered load shedding needed to achieve closed transition into island mode and to accommodate changing loads and power source availability while islanded. A commercial microgrid controller was used for these tests with normal programming within the expected constraints of the system capabilities. That is, the solution did not require any specialized modification to the code base of the controller. Given the latency of the round-trip communication path between the microgrid controller and the various devices involved with the load shed processes, there are certain scenarios for which the demonstrated solution are appropriate and some which are not. The methods described in this report can be used for load shedding/restoration during transitions between islanded and grid-tied modes of operation, as well as accommodating normal variations in load and the need to remove a power source from operation for maintenance. These methods should not be used for scenarios that require load shedding within a second or two such as sudden and unanticipated significant load increases or loss of power sources through equipment faults.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

MOOSE-based Tritium Migration Analysis Program, Version 8 (TMAP8) for advanced open-source tritium transport and fuel cycle modeling

Tritium management is critical for the safety, sustainability, and economics of fusion energy systems, and advanced and reliable modeling tools help accelerate the development of tritium technologies. This paper presents the Tritium Migration Analysis Program, Version 8 (TMAP8), an open-source, MOOSE-based application developed to provide state-of-the-art tritium transport and fuel cycle modeling capabilities. TMAP8 aims to expand the capabilities of previous versions (i.e., TMAP4 and TMAP7) by leveraging modern computational techniques, ensuring high software quality assurance standards (key to building trust), and enabling multispecies, multiscale, and multiphysics simulations for integrated tritium transport modeling in complex geometries. This paper outlines TMAP8’s scope and rigorous development practices, emphasizing its transparency, accessibility, modularity, and reliability. We present the current suite of verification and validation cases based on those from TMAP4, demonstrating TMAP8’s accuracy and reliability against analytical solutions and experimental data. Additionally, the paper showcases TMAP8’s integrated fuel cycle modeling capabilities, highlighting its applicability at various scales and levels. The TMAP8 code and documentation are openly available, promoting collaborative development and widespread adoption within the fusion community. Future work will soon expand TMAP8’s verification and validation suite to include those from TMAP7 and other recent experimental studies for validation.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of In-Situ AM Process Monitoring Techniques and Potential for Detecting Process Anomalies and Undesirable Microstructures

The US Department of Energy’s Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) program is pursuing rapid qualification of new materials for fabrication of nuclear relevant components using advanced manufacturing techniques. Particular interest is placed on code-qualifying stainless steel (SS) 316H processed by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing. A paradigm that incorporates data from in-situ sensing during the printing, ex-situ characterization, and advanced artificial intelligence–based models was established under the Transformation Challenge Reactor (TCR) program to develop a pedigree for each fabricated component that could be tracked from the feedstock to the component’s release for application. Under the TCR program, the Peregrine software was developed as a tool for incorporating the vast amounts of in-situ and ex-situ characterization data collected; all data stored on a rapidly growing digital platform. The digital platform allows for users to link site-specific process anomalies to the macro- and microstructure. The platform will eventually be able to predict component performance, which will be crucial to qualifying materials and components in risk-averse industries such as those supporting and building nuclear reactors. Current in-situ process monitoring techniques that are already integrated with software like Peregrine are advantageous for identifying process anomalies including powder spatter, component edge swelling, recoating-build interactions, and so on. However, additional data are required to fully predict the resulting microstructures needed for identifying relationships to component performance. The rapid cooling rates observed in LPBF are some of the highest of any bulk manufacturing process, resulting in heterogenous microstructures and typically causing anisotropy in mechanical properties. Moreover, evolved residual thermal stresses are high, which can cause severe defects such as delamination or cracking. Therefore, other in-situ monitoring methods are warranted for exploration to measure and map the thermal history, and potentially the stress state, of each build. This report summarizes different in-situ monitoring strategies proposed for LPBF with a focus on the more developed sensor systems. Novel capabilities for measuring melt pool temperatures are also addressed to better inform modeling efforts.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emission Points and Sampling Systems

Battelle–Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development laboratories in Washington State. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contracts to Battelle at Richland facilities on both the DOE Hanford Site and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Richland campus. These facilities have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The PNNL contract with DOE also includes operations at the PNNL-Sequim campus in Sequim, where there is also the potential for radionuclide air emissions. This document is a periodic update that describes current PNNL facility emission units and sampling systems. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP [40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart H]) requires an assessment of all emission units that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. Emission units are registered with the State of Washington. Potential emissions from emission units are assessed annually by PNNL staff. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based on the potential to-emit dose criteria, a graded approach to facility-identified potential impact categories, and regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission unit system performance, operation, and design information. For sampled emission units, the building, exhaust unit, control technologies, and sample extraction details are provided. Additionally, applicable configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are included. For non-sampled emission units, emission estimation and radionuclide source details are provided. Site-wide permits for the lowest potential impact category are described. Deregistered/transitioned emission unit details are also provided as necessary for at least 5 years post-closure/transition. Currently, five emission units are sampled continuously for particulate radionuclides at PNNL managed facilities on the PNNL-Richland campus (3 of the 5) and on the Hanford Site (2 of the 5). Four of these units have sampling systems that comply with the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1–2011 standard for sampling from stacks and ducts of nuclear facilities, and the fifth is grandfathered and compliant with the older ANSI N13.1–1969 standard. In addition, the PNNL-managed Hanford Site 325 Building EP 325-01-S stack is sampled continuously for emissions of tritium. No emissions sampling is required for the single licensed emission unit on the PNNL-Sequim campus.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗