Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “performance contracting”

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 487 records · Page 27
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Annual Sustainability Report 2023

ORNL, managed under contract by UT-Battelle LLC, is DOE’s largest science and energy laboratory and, as such, executes the widest range of mission capabilities. Diverse expertise spans a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines, enabling research and science achievements to accelerate the delivery of solutions to the marketplace. ORNL supports DOE’s national missions of scientific discovery, clean energy, and security. To execute these activities, ORNL has grown significantly over 80 years of continuous operations, consisting of facilities with commissioning dates ranging from the 1940s to the present—an extraordinary set of distinctive scientific facilities and equipment. The complexities of such a variety of facilities require teamwork among divisions, a wide variety of conservation projects, and creative strategies to achieve the desired energy and water savings. Such a diverse and unique set of major facilities, totaling over 5.5 million square feet, with 6,000 employees, requires an innovative plan to accomplish advancements in operational efficiencies. ORNL is tasked with the management of an extraordinary set of distinctive scientific facilities and equipment for DOE. ORNL is mission-driven, and its mission has grown substantially over the decades. ORNL’s core research capabilities provide broad science and technology support for DOE in the areas of energy, environment, and national security. Currently, ORNL is a world leader in materials, neutron, and nuclear science and engineering, and in high-performance computing and data analytics. ORNL’s vast portfolio of research facilities must be maintained and carefully upgraded to protect the nation’s investment in scientific analysis. The goal of sustainable and resilient operations is to enable more effective execution of ORNL’s science and technology mission. Sustainable operational practices and enhanced resilience strive for excellent results while remaining diligent in energy conservation, environmental stewardship, asset management, and community engagement. The Sustainable ORNL Program (Sustainable ORNL) Continuous improvements in operational and business processes must be integrated into the fabric of the ORNL culture to maximize the return from the investment made in modernizing facilities and equipment. The Sustainable ORNL program promotes the legacy of system-wide best practices, management commitment, and employee engagement that will lead ORNL into a future of efficient, resilient, and sustainable operations. ORNL leadership and Sustainable ORNL champions receive regular status reports on the progress of each project and focus area (i.e., roadmap) and periodic summary reports. More information can be found at the program’s website. The Sustainable ORNL roadmap structure endorses 15 vital roadmaps. The figure below summarizes the current project assignments and demonstrates that each project contributes to the wellbeing of the whole. Continuous employee engagement and regular status reports confirm the ideals of the program. The roadmap structure is not static; as the science mission advances and the needs of the organization evolve, the Sustainable ORNL roadmap structure elements are modified to align with developing priorities. In 2022, Sustainable ORNL made roadmap changes to better align ORNL to support new federal requirements that have been issued.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

On the Road to Achieving Safety Excellence at the Idaho Cleanup Project: The Initial Challenges, Solutions, and Positive Results of Striving to be the Best and Safest in the DOE Complex - 20518

When Fluor Idaho, LLC (Fluor Idaho) assumed the Idaho Cleanup Project Core contract (ICP Core) in mid-2016, it inherited the successful multi-faceted, employee-owned safety programs of two prior contractors supporting cleanup operations at the Idaho National Laboratory Site. Fluor Idaho incorporated the best of both safety programs along with Fluor Corporate's 106-year legacy of safety initiatives and successes. Fluor Idaho integrated the separate programs and cultures under a One Fluor approach - one project, one mission, One Fluor. Job changes, management changes, and procedures, processes, and system changes presented multiple challenges. Those challenges combined with the severe Winter of 2016/2017 resulted in numerous slips, trips, and falls first aids and reportable injuries. The road to safety excellence started off bumpy and stayed that way for some time. Since then, Fluor Idaho has successfully implemented several key initiatives including employee engagement; management engagement and time in the field; communications improvements; safety culture sustainment; injury/illness prevention; organizational learning; and DOE Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) readiness and preparation. Management became more engaged by making more workplace visits and increasing their supervision of 'life critical work' or complex activities. Additional training became mandatory for first-line supervisors and front-line workers. Most recently, Fluor Idaho increased its injury and illness prevention initiatives extensively. In the last year, things have turned around in a dramatic way. This shift is directly attributable to the significant number of initiatives launched in late 2017 and 2018. These initiatives addressed safety performance in the five key areas of the DOE VPP and promoted sustainability of the company's safety culture. The five key areas are: management leadership, employee involvement, work-site analysis, hazard prevention and control, and safety and health training. Employees and managers alike recommitted to making safety the highest value. The result of this laser-like focus on safety and accident and injury prevention is that injuries and first aids are a fraction of what they were. During FY 2019, employees worked more than 4.2 million hours without a serious injury or lost work-day and 1 million hours without a recordable injury. Fluor Idaho is proud of its safety trend. The company invested significant resources in improving its safety record, and that investment is paying off. Other contractors in the DOE Complex can learn and benefit from this discussion of the challenges Fluor Idaho faced, as well as its innovative safety initiatives that are producing results that are being recognized by our U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) customer. (authors)

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

Treatment of Problematic Reactive Metal Wastes Using GeoMelt ICV - WM2020 Conference Paper

Decommissioning of sodium-cooled reactors and fast reactor technologies has generated a number of reactive metal waste configurations that are problematic to treat and typically lack cost effective treatment methods and disposition options. As a result, Veolia Nuclear Solutions, under contract with Idaho National Laboratory (owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC) demonstrated its GeoMelt® In-Container Vitrification (ICV)™ technology to safely convert sodium metal to a non-reactive vitrified oxide form. The demonstration project, supported by glass formulation and crucible testing, consisted of a series of ICV™ melts that processed elemental sodium into stable non-reactive glass. INL is currently implementing GeoMelt® technology as a means to safely and reliably convert radioactive reactive metal residues that contaminate sodium cooled reactor components into waste forms that comply with existing disposition pathways. Reactive metal wastes require treatment in order to remove the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reactivity and ignitability characteristics to comply with land disposal restrictions. GeoMelt®, which is an alternative to other potential treatment approaches, provides a robust approach that chemically converts the reactive metals to an inert oxide while also immobilizing radionuclides in a vitrified waste form with durability equal to or better than vitrified nuclear fuel reprocessing wastes (very robust and inert waste forms). Most other treatment approaches generate hydrogen gas which is problematic. In 2016, Veolia Nuclear Solutions first demonstrated the effectiveness of the GeoMelt® ICV™ process in deactivating reactive sodium metal. Crucible, bench-scale, and engineering-scale demonstrations were conducted on several surrogate waste configurations with various ratios of sodium metal and glass-formers. Each ratio and configuration demonstrated complete deactivation of the surrogate sodium metal. Follow-on work in 2017 demonstrated the deactivation of reactive sodium by GeoMelt® ICV™ at a higher waste loading relative to previously demonstrated work performed in 2016; the higher waste loading optimized glass chemistry while enhancing the economical full-scale treatment of reactive metals. Additionally, follow-on demonstration testing in 2018 and 2019 focused on more complex shapes and other reactive-metals (mocked up Experimental Breeder Reactor II [EBR-II] subassembly, sodium filled heat exchanger, and a can containing sodium potassium alloy) which were all performed at engineering-scale. Since 2018, a 10-metric ton full-scale GeoMelt unit (GeoMelt® Richland) was designed, installed, and commissioned at Perma-Fix Northwest in Richland, Washington for the treatment of reactive metal wastes. As of September 2019, over 900 55-gallon drums containing a total of around 3,500 lb of sodium with low levels of radioactivity have been treated at GeoMelt ® Richland, with resulting glass monoliths disposed at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). A full-scale radiological demonstration melt on an actual EBR-II subassembly has also been performed using the full-scale melter in 2019. The GeoMelt® technology is a proven radioactive waste treatment technology capable of immobilizing radioactive wastes, including bulk rubble such as drums and other steel vessels usually without pretreatment. Utilizing the GeoMelt® technology to treat reactive metals eliminates pretreatment steps resulting from having to separate the reactive metal from steel containers or jackets as GeoMelt® can easily operate at temperatures sufficient to melt the steel and expose the reactive metal for treatment. Eliminating handling steps of reactive metals is a significant safety advantage since reactive metals are pyrophoric. The results generated as a part of the 2018-2019 demonstration program are presented in the paper.

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

Treatment of Problematic Reactive Metal Wastes Using the GeoMelt{sup R} In-Container Vitrification (ICV{sup TM}) Process - 20326

Decommissioning of sodium-cooled reactors and fast reactor technologies has generated a number of reactive metal waste configurations that are problematic to treat and typically lack cost effective treatment methods and disposition options. As a result, Veolia Nuclear Solutions, under contract with Idaho National Laboratory (owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC) demonstrated its GeoMelt{sup R} In-Container Vitrification (ICV){sup TM} technology to safely convert sodium metal to a non-reactive vitrified oxide form. The demonstration project, supported by glass formulation and crucible testing, consisted of a series of ICV{sup TM} melts that processed elemental sodium into stable non-reactive glass. INL is currently implementing GeoMelt{sup R} technology as a means to safely and reliably convert radioactive reactive metal residues that contaminate sodium cooled reactor components into waste forms that comply with existing disposition pathways. Reactive metal wastes require treatment in order to remove the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) reactivity and ignitability characteristics to comply with land disposal restrictions. GeoMelt{sup R}, which is an alternative to other potential treatment approaches, provides a robust approach that chemically converts the reactive metals to an inert oxide while also immobilizing radionuclides in a vitrified waste form with durability equal to or better than vitrified nuclear fuel reprocessing wastes (very robust and inert waste forms). Most other treatment approaches generate hydrogen gas which is problematic. In 2016, Veolia Nuclear Solutions first demonstrated the effectiveness of the GeoMelt{sup R} ICV{sup TM} process in deactivating reactive sodium metal. Crucible, bench-scale, and engineering-scale demonstrations were conducted on several surrogate waste configurations with various ratios of sodium metal and glass formers. Each ratio and configuration demonstrated complete deactivation of the surrogate sodium metal. Follow-on work in 2017 demonstrated the deactivation of reactive sodium by GeoMelt{sup R} ICV{sup TM} at a higher waste loading relative to previously demonstrated work performed in 2016; the higher waste loading optimized glass chemistry while enhancing the economical full-scale treatment of reactive metals. Additionally, follow-on demonstration testing in 2018 and 2019 focused on more complex shapes and other reactive-metals (mocked up Experimental Breeder Reactor II [EBR-II] subassembly, sodium filled heat exchanger, and a can containing sodium potassium alloy) which were all performed at engineering scale. Veolia Nuclear Solutions designed, installed, and commissioned in September 2018, at Perma-Fix Northwest in Richland Washington, a 10-metric ton full-scale GeoMelt unit (GeoMelt{sup R} Richland) for the treatment of reactive metal wastes. As of September 2019, over 900 55-gallon drums containing a total of around 3,500 lb of sodium with low levels of radioactivity have been treated at GeoMelt{sup R} Richland, with resulting glass monoliths disposed at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). A full-scale radiological demonstration melt on an actual EBR-II subassembly has also been performed using the full-scale melter in 2019. The GeoMelt{sup R} technology is a proven radioactive waste treatment technology capable of immobilizing radioactive wastes, including bulk rubble such as drums and other steel vessels usually without pretreatment. Utilizing the GeoMelt{sup R} technology to treat reactive metals eliminates pretreatment steps resulting from having to separate the reactive metal from steel containers or jackets as GeoMelt{sup R} can easily operate at temperatures sufficient to melt the steel and expose the reactive metal for treatment. Eliminating handling steps of reactive metals is a significant safety advantage since reactive metals are pyrophoric. The results generated as a part of the 2018-2019 demonstration program are presented in the paper. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Experimental Investigation of a Phase Change Material Charged Finned-Tube Heat Exchanger

Understanding different thermal performance aspects of phase change material heat exchangers (PCM-HX) is critical for designing future energy-efficient thermal energy storage systems. This paper presents an experimental performance analysis of a vertically oriented annular finned-tube PCM-HX in a cylindrical container tested under six different melting and solidification test conditions, varied by heat transfer fluid’s (HTF) inlet temperatures and flow directions. The PCM-HX structure with 20 evenly spaced fins was 3D printed in aluminum, and the PCM-HX container was 285 mm in height. The PCM-HX average porosity was 89.7%, where the PCM mass was 246.4 g. Water served as the HTF, and a PCM with a nominal phase change temperature of 35 °C was selected. Instead of opaque conventional insulation sheets, a combination of air-and-argon-filled see-through insulation cylinders was assembled with the PCM-HX to visualize the phase-change phenomena, while minimizing the uncertainties due to heat loss. In total, there were 78 T-type thermocouples installed in the test section which allows a more precise assessment of thermal mass and heat loss, which are often neglected in similar studies found in the literature. We validated the reliability of the test facility as the repeated test results had negligible deviations under the same test conditions. The energy balances between the estimated theoretical and experimentally calculated PCM storage, considering heat loss and thermal mass, were within ±9% deviation for all test conditions. From the experimental investigations, we made several following observations. It was found that the melting pattern of the finned-tube PCM-HX with small gaps between the container wall and the fins was largely affected by the HTF flow directions, unlike the typical straight annular tube PCM-HX. For effective charging and discharging processes, a combination of upward melting and downward solidification is recommended to shorten the test duration. However, an upward solidification should be considered to minimize the cavity formation between the fins caused by the PCM volume contraction during the solidification process.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hydrogen Storage for Flexible Fossil Fuel Power Generation: Integration of Underground Hydrogen Storage with Gas Turbine (Final Report)

As the nation continues to encourage, through market structures and financial incentives, the proliferation of intermittent renewable electricity, how to optimize the ever-changing electric grid and identify means to retain and improve resilience, while ensuring continued reductions in GHG emissions, will be critical. According to Bloomberg, wind & solar generated 10.5% of US electricity in 2020 and that percentage continues to grow. In support of expanding renewable energy use, and to address its intermittent nature, this project will develop the Hydrogen Storage for Flexible Fossil Fuel Power Generation platform that is dispatchable, reliable, repeatable and have the ability to produce zero or negative carbon power while interfacing with geology capable of CO2 and hydrogen storage. GTI Energy (GTIE) and team members Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America (MHIA), Ameren Illinois, Hexagon Purus, and the Low Carbon Resources Initiative (LCRI) completed a Phase I Conceptual Study under contract DE-FE0032012 for Hydrogen Storage for Flexible Fossil Fuel Power Generation: Integration of Underground Hydrogen Storage with Gas Turbine. The Hydrogen Storage for Flexible Fossil Fuel Power Generation platform addresses the intermittent nature of the expanding use of Variable Renewable Energy (VRE) generation. The low cost of the electricity (COE) generated results in greater dispatch and more operation at higher power levels (higher efficiency), fewer short intervals, and fewer start/stop cycles. The reliable, resilient system can produce zero carbon power and store hydrogen. It will demonstrate hydrogen storage in geologic formations like those used in natural gas underground storage thus enabling large scale storage of hydrogen in sedimentary strata across the United States rather than in geographically restricted salt caverns. The Phase I study confirmed the system is feasible and generates power at lower cost than other low carbon approaches. The demonstration defines the pathway for broad commercial application and will accelerate the development of larger systems suitable for centralized utility scale electricity production. The study advanced the maturity of the H 2 storage-based system with flexible power generation by completing a Pre-FEED study (Phase II). The Pre-FEED focused on the selected Energy Farm on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) site that includes above ground and underground hydrogen storage, low-carbon hydrogen production (GTI’s Compact Hydrogen Generator, CHG) with underground CO2 sequestration, and a 40-MW class gas turbine. The Pre-FEED addressed the entire system and its interconnection to the natural gas and electric grid and mitigation of key risks, such as storage behavior, load-following, and system operation. During Phase 1 of the project, the team completed key tasks, which moved the entire demonstration project, specific components and approaches closer to commercialization. These Phase I Accomplishments include: Completing System Requirements Review; Completing System Layout and Modeling - Heat & Mass Balance and Process Flow Diagram; Completing modelling of 9 turbine performance cases; Evaluating rock strata for underground storage of hydrogen and sequestration of carbon dioxide; Completing initial modelling of underground storage of hydrogen and withdrawal with evaluation of loss and water production; Identifying roadable storage for above ground hydrogen storage; Identifying existing electrical infrastructure for receiving/delivering electricity; Identifying existing gas supply infrastructure for receiving natural gas; Document concept design/development plans in required reports. Conclusions: The 12-month Feasibility study in Phase I study was completed and confirmed the system is feasible and generates power at lower cost than other low carbon approaches and even lower cost than the reference NGCC plant without carbon capture when taking advantage of 45Q carbon credits. The study enabled the fidelity of the concept to be improved and allowed identification of the requirements for the system. Defining the individual system and component requirements was performed via the system requirements review with the whole team. These requirements were then incorporated into and iterated with our Heat & Mass Balance process model and process flow diagrams were generated to reflect the overall system. This information was then used to complete the TEA and show economic feasibility. Large scale non-salt geologic storage of hydrogen is an enabling technology for a hydrogen-fired turbine that can be retrofitted into large-scale electric generating units (EGU). Our demonstration will include 428 MWh or ~4 hours full load of hydrogen storage (above and underground). Carbon capture inherent to the CHG process can capture 90% CO 2 (with upgrades to >98%). This system provides a COE of 23% savings relative to an NGCC with a post combustion amine system. Our proposed storage system decouples carbon capture and hydrogen production from power production; therefore, we expect our proposed system’s efficiency and variable COE to be superior resulting in overall higher dispatch and reduced deep cycling. Our demonstration will be full to multi-day hydrogen storage and has the potential for longer (seasonal) duration commercially. The demonstration defines the pathway for broad commercial application and will accelerate the development of larger systems suitable for centralized utility scale electricity production.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

GIS-Based Modeling of Contaminated Soil Volumes at Multiple Sites in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program - 20149

The remediation of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites produces cost-related risks associated with the estimation of contaminated soil or debris volumes. Historical risk-management techniques include cost contingencies to cover volume uncertainties that affect project budgeting and decision-making. The Buffalo District teamed with project partners to lessen volume uncertainty and reduce project risks at multiple HTRW sites managed under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Historical remedial investigations under FUSRAP commonly identified the presence of radiological material in site media, the associated human health risk, and then areas of remediation. To manage remedial execution and reduce risk, pre-design or remediation-phase sampling essentially 'chased' contamination, which was not conducive to efficient predictive budgeting derived from Feasibility Study (FS) cost analyses. The Buffalo District first optimized their approach to better understand volume uncertainty by utilizing the Argonne National Laboratory's Bayesian Approaches for Adaptive Spatial Sampling (BAASS) software [1]. BAASS processed soft data (e.g., gamma walk-over data) and spatial sampling data to estimate the lateral extent of contaminated soil irrespective of depth (i.e., gross contamination extent) and define areas of contaminant uncertainty. The software performed a binary transformation of contaminant concentrations at all sampling points based upon remedial action goals or a sum of ratios approach (i.e., clean, impacted, or range of impacts in soil). The model produced two-dimensional (horizontal) contaminant probability contours and statistical uncertainty in the sampling coverage and resulting contaminant extents. This method was translated vertically by partitioning the sampling data into depth brackets that produced a stacked representation of contaminant extents and uncertainty in the subsurface (i.e., similar to construction lifts). The results commonly led to a better understanding of project uncertainty and the need for sampling strategies that produce high-confidence soil volumes, which control costs. The BAASS-based delineations were eventually replaced by Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) methods available in ArcGIS Spatial or 3D Analysts [2]. The EBK method calculates contaminant probability zones derived from user-controlled semivariograms of the spatial datasets. The resulting probability zones (e.g., 50% or 80% of contaminant probability) represent the two-dimensional surface delineation of the overall horizontal remedial area, similarly to BAASS. However, unlike BAASS, the vertical sampling data within these probability zones became vertical control points to contour a subterranean surface that connects subsurface points to the land-surface delineations of contamination. The resulting representation of horizontal and vertical impacts within an enclosed envelop (volume) of soil included uncertainty distributions that are used to plan uncertainty-reduction sampling. These data-driven and math-based models of three-dimensional sampling results produced well-bounded remedial volumes for project planning and better uncertainty predictions during project budgeting. The EBK method was applied to several FUSRAP sites managed by the Buffalo District and compared to less rigorously modeled sites previously remediated by the District. The comparison of modeled to actual remediated volumes provide a basis for validating the volume-estimation method. This comparison is important to ensure modeled volumes match physical boundaries of site remediation. FUSRAP sites with denser investigative sampling and lesser volume uncertainty proved useful in remedial planning and contracting. The Buffalo District noted that historical sites with sparser sampling arrays had greater disparity between estimated volumes and final remedial volumes. The benefit achieved over the cost of detailed soil sampling appears positive for FUSRAP projects, especially where impacts vary widely and appear unbounded by investigation-phase sampling. The subsequent Empirical Bayesian Kriging of contamination coupled with vertical contouring for soil estimations reduces uncertainty in soil volumes or indicates where sampling is required to reduce uncertainty, which together optimize remedial planning and budgeting. (authors)

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

Development of an In-Situ Method for Cable Condition Monitoring in Nuclear Power Plants (SBIR Phase IIB Final Report)

This is the final report of a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) project that Analysis and Measurement Services Corporation (AMS) has conducted for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) over a seven-and-a-half year period (February 2013 through April 2020 with the awards of Phase I, Phase II and Phase IIB projects). The goal of the project was to design, develop, validate, and demonstrate a technique for in-situ testing of cable insulation polymers that will identify, locate, and provide the degree of aging for cables commonly used in nuclear power plants. During the Phase I project, AMS established that the frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) technique can successfully identify and measure cable insulation degradation that can be trended with aging. In Phase II, AMS performed extensive cable aging studies to correlate FDR measurements with other laboratory condition monitoring techniques and developed aging condition categories to quantify the severity of insulation degradation. In Phase IIB, the project expanded the research to include a wider variety of cable polymers that are used in the commercial nuclear power industry. This work also involved developing acceptance criteria to objectively assess age-related cable degradation while sharing the results of this research with industry, academia, and national laboratories to advance the state of the art in cable aging management technologies. The products developed under this research project provide the nuclear industry with an effective condition monitoring tool to support safe and long-term plant operation. Throughout the project, collaborations and support were received from a variety of industry organizations and individuals including DOE National Laboratories as well as nuclear plant utilities and several other industry experts and cable manufacturers. Contributions from these organizations included the donation of new cables, naturally aged cables, and research collaboration. The validation and commercialization of the products of this project were achieved through opportunities to test and demonstrate the technologies’ capabilities on-site at nuclear power generation and research facilities as well as in the laboratory alongside industry peers and cable testing service companies. The research resulted in a technology that can be used to identify, locate, and quantify age-related degradation in several types of cable polymers. This included developing software and hardware as well as the methodology for using the FDR technique to assess age-related degradation of installed cables. The technology developed under this project can provide nuclear plant management, engineers, and technicians with an in-situ electrical test method to determine if in-service cables need to be replaced, monitored on a periodic basis, or show no evidence of significant age-related degradation that may require action. Near the end of this Phase IIB project, the FDR product was sold to a nuclear power utility in South Korea. This sale of a dedicated aging assessment tool is the beginning of a comprehensive contract with the expectation of twelve (12) units sold to that country. Additionally, the FDR technology has been sold to several industry organizations including a nuclear research institute and the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. This technology is also being leased by other nuclear industry service companies for incorporation into aging management programs. The cable testing technology that was developed under this project was also integrated into a comprehensive cable aging assessment service that is being offered to the nuclear industry at the request of U.S. nuclear utilities and is currently part of onsite testing services provided by AMS.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2024

Reactive transport modeling of the Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (ATES) system at Stockton University, New Jersey during seasonal operations

Hydrogeochemical processes associated with Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage (ATES) operations can often impact the system performance owing to mineral precipitation either at the wellbore or in the aquifer owing to changes in temperature and fluid disequilibria. Although failure of ATES systems due to mineral precipitation ("fouling") is common, predictive reactive-transport models have rarely been applied to plan their design and operation. Here, the objective of this study is to develop a reactive-transport model by coupling thermal, hydrological, and chemical (THC) processes to evaluate effects of introduced atmospheric oxygen on water chemistry, mineral precipitation/dissolution, porosity, and permeability changes associated with an ATES system at Stockton University (New Jersey, USA). The THC model builds on a Thermal-Hydrological-Mechanical (THM) model of the site that evaluated system failure owing to possible fracturing in the caprock or around the wellbore. The causes of the system failure are not known – potential causes include hydraulic fracturing owing to elevated pump pressures that took place, a flow pathway created by one of the boreholes, or a pre-existing natural hydrologic connection between the upper unconfined aquifer and the ATES aquifer, any of which could have led to oxygenated water entering the reservoir and causing the observed Fe-oxide fouling on well screens. The THC model is used to evaluate some of the hypotheses and observations regarding system failure owing to geochemical processes. The reactive-transport code TOUGHREACT V4 was used to model the THC processes during seasonal heating and cooling operations at the Stockton ATES site over 6 years of operation. In the THC simulations, the primary effects on geochemistry were observed when the injection water is saturated with atmospheric oxygen. Simulations show greater precipitation of goethite near the cold wells as compared to the warm wells. Although volume fractions of Fe-hydroxides were relatively small, the model was aimed at processes in the aquifer at the scale of meters and larger rather than at the scale of mm or cm (i.e., a well screen). Kaolinite is the dominant precipitating phase, also around the cold wells. Illite dissolves near the cold wells and precipitates near the warm wells. There is a net decrease in the porosity near the cold wells and increase near the warm wells, although a slight amount of thermal contraction near the cold wells and expansion near the warm wells is responsible for a significant proportion of the porosity change. Owing to the coarse discretization of the numerical grid near the wells (compared to the screen thickness) the magnitude of permeability changes at the wellbore are likely underestimated. The reactive transport model in this study can be used for characterization of aquifers, optimizing the operational parameters (temperature, pressure, pH etc.), and planning of mitigation strategies for ATES systems.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Model America - data and models of every U.S. building

The 5-year goal of the 'Model America' concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,714,640 buildings detected in the United States and this dataset contains 122,930,327 (97.8%) buildings which resulted in a successful simulation. Future, annual updates have been proposed that may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic enhancements. This dataset of 122.9 million buildings includes: Models (state_county.zip) - OpenStudio (v3.1.0) and EnergyPlus (v9.4) building energy models. Please note that the download requires the free Globus Connect Personal (https://www.globus.org/globus-connect-personal); Each model has approximately 3,000 building input descriptors that can be extracted. Please see the EnergyPlus(v9.4) 2,784-page Input/Output Reference Guide (https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v9.4.0/InputOutputReference.pdf) for everything that can be retrieved or simulated from these models. These models were derived from the following metadata, which is not included in this dataset: 1. ID - unique building ID 2. County - county name 3. State - state name 4. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 5. Clim_Zone - text label of climate zone 6. est_year - estimated year of construction 7. est_commercial - estimated building type (0=residential, 1=commercial) 8. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 9. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 10. Height - building height (meters) 11. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 12. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 13. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 14. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 15. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 16. Standard - building vintage. These models are made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Please cite as: New, Joshua R., Adams, Mark, Bass, Brett, Berres, Anne, and Clinton, Nicholas (2021). 'Model America - data and models of every U.S. building. [Data set].' Constellation, doi.ccs.ornl.gov/ui/doi/339, April 14, 2021

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

Preliminary IHLW Formulation Algorithm Description

This report documents the initial algorithm that could be used by the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) in batching high-level waste (HLW) and glass-forming chemicals (GFCs) in the HLW melter feed preparation vessel (MFPV) (HFP-VSL-00001 and -00005). Not all Hanford tank waste can be accommodated by the models developed for this report and significant expansion of the model boundaries could be achievable to reduce the WTP mission life and total canister production count. The immobilized HLW (IHLW) must meet a series of constraints to be acceptable for disposal in the Monitored Geologic Repository, which are contained in the Specification 1 of the Contract (DOE 2000), the Waste Acceptance Product Specifications (WAPS, DOE 1996), and the Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document (WASRD, DOE 2007). The IHLW Waste Form Compliance Plan (WCP, 24590-HLW-PL-RT-07-0001, Rev 3) specifies that the formulation algorithm will be developed and used to comply with the constraints associated with glass composition and properties. This report is not an engineering calculation, does not provide design input, and is not an engineering study. Algorithm inputs include the chemical analyses of the blended HLW in the HLW blend vessel (HBV) (HLP-VSL-00028, the volume and composition of the MFPV heel, the volume and composition of the MFPV after waste addition, the volume and composition of MFPV batch after GFC addition, the compositions of individual GFCs, and the mass of glass in each canister. In addition to these inputs, uncertainties in the HLW composition and processing parameters are included in the algorithm. Using the above inputs, the algorithm calculates the following outputs: 1) the volume of HLW to be transferred from the HBV to the MFPV, 2) the mass of each GFC for addition to the MFPV, 3) the composition of the glass that will be produced along with uncertainties, and 4) the predicted properties, with associated uncertainties, of the resulting IHLW. The algorithm uses the property-composition models to calculate properties with associated uncertainties and compares them with various constraints to ensure that a processable feed is formulated and a compliant IHLW is produced. The GFC additions are determined using an optimization approach to provide high confidence that the HLW glass will meet all product quality requirements and key processing constraints. For most HLW batches there are many possible glass compositions that meet all constraints. In these cases, the glass composition is optimized for a series of target component concentrations and target property values. The algorithm also incorporates process measurement and product quality uncertainties, based on the work of Piepel et al. (2005). Estimates of the various process and measurement uncertainties that affect glass compositions and predicted glass properties have been previously reported (Piepel et al. 2005, 2006) and the impacts of these estimated uncertainties on the IHLW composition envelope that meets product quality and processing-related properties with sufficient confidence were evaluated. The details of work performed to date to develop this initial GFC addition and batching algorithm are summarized in Sections 4 and 5. An example data set is used to illustrate the calculations of the algorithm summarized in Section 6. Finally, in Section 7, there is a statement of the required work to achieve a final operational IHLW formulation control algorithm. This report is not an engineering calculation, does not provide design input, and is not an engineering study.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Completed SDSS-IV extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological implications from two decades of spectroscopic surveys at the Apache Point Observatory

We present the cosmological implications from final measurements of clustering using galaxies, quasars, and Lyα forests from the completed Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) lineage of experiments in large-scale structure. These experiments, composed of data from SDSS, SDSS-II, BOSS, and eBOSS, offer independent measurements of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements of angular-diameter distances and Hubble distances relative to the sound horizon, r d , from eight different samples and six measurements of the growth rate parameter, fσ 8 , from redshift-space distortions (RSD). This composite sample is the most constraining of its kind and allows us to perform a comprehensive assessment of the cosmological model after two decades of dedicated spectroscopic observation. We show that the BAO data alone are able to rule out dark-energy-free models at more than eight standard deviations in an extension to the flat, ΛCDM model that allows for curvature. When combined with Planck Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements of temperature and polarization, under the same model, the BAO data provide nearly an order of magnitude improvement on curvature constraints relative to primary CMB constraints alone. Independent of distance measurements, the SDSS RSD data complement weak lensing measurements from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) in demonstrating a preference for a flat ΛCDM cosmological model when combined with Planck measurements. The combined BAO and RSD measurements indicate σ 8 =0.85±0.03, implying a growth rate that is consistent with predictions from Planck temperature and polarization data and with General Relativity. When combining the results of SDSS BAO and RSD, Planck, Pantheon Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia), and DES weak lensing and clustering measurements, all multiple-parameter extensions remain consistent with a ΛCDM model. Regardless of cosmological model, the precision on each of the three parameters, Ω Λ , H 0 , and σ 8 , remains at roughly 1%, showing changes of less than 0.6% in the central values between models. In a model that allows for free curvature and a time-evolving equation of state for dark energy, the combined samples produce a constraint Ω K =-0.0022±0.0022. The dark energy constraints lead to w 0 =-0.909±0.081 and w a =$-0.49_{-0.30}^{+0.35}$, corresponding to an equation of state of w p =-1.018±0.032 at a pivot redshift z p =0.29 and a Dark Energy Task Force Figure of Merit of 94. The inverse distance ladder measurement under this model yields H 0 =68.18±0.79 km s -1 Mpc -1 , remaining in tension with several direct determination methods; the BAO data allow Hubble constant estimates that are robust against the assumption of the cosmological model. In addition, the BAO data allow estimates of H 0 that are independent of the CMB data, with similar central values and precision under a ΛCDM model. Our most constraining combination of data gives the upper limit on the sum of neutrino masses at Σm ν <0.115 eV (95% confidence). Finally, we consider the improvements in cosmology constraints over the last decade by comparing our results to a sample representative of the period 2000-2010. We compute the relative gain across the five dimensions spanned by w, Ω k , Σm ν , H 0 , and σ 8 and find that the SDSS BAO and RSD data reduce the total posterior volume by a factor of 40 relative to the previous generation. Finally, adding again the Planck, DES, and Pantheon SN Ia samples leads to an overall contraction in the five-dimensional posterior volume of 3 orders of magnitude.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluation of Data Catalog Software for Hanford Site Environmental Datasets

Environmental information and data underpin achievement of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) mission at the Hanford Site. The Hanford Environmental Data Management (HEDM) Program is the DOE Richland Operations Office (RL) approach to develop and implement a formal program for managing environmental data and the associated records, materials, and systems at the Hanford Site. The current project, contract, organization, and contractor-specific efforts at managing environmental data sets are insufficient to provide orderly, long-term, site-wide access. A vital element to be created within the HEDM program plan is a catalog of data sources, called the Hanford Environmental Information and Data Index (HEIDI), that will enable long-term access and retrievability for the multiple independent sources of data that might otherwise be difficult to discover. This report compares leading open source and commercial data catalog platforms using criteria to assess the functionality needed to develop the HEIDI catalog of Hanford data sources that connects and exchanges data with established Hanford Local Area Network (HLAN) enterprise information technology systems. Proprietary platforms evaluated included ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, Junar, OpenDataSoft, and Socrata, and non-proprietary platforms included Energy Data eXchange (EDX), Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN), and DKAN (a Drupal-based open data portal based on CKAN). Capabilities supporting data discoverability, retrieval, and archival, as well as metadata standard requirements and integration into the HLAN were rated as either failing to meet requirements (F), meeting requirements (M), or exceeding requirements by delivering additional desired features (E). The lowest rating for any capability area was assigned as the overall rating for the platform. These findings enable DOE-RL and the contractors implementing the HEDM plan to focus on candidate tools likely to meet the requirements for implementing HEIDI. All of the platforms receiving an overall rating of ‘F’ were unable to be deployed on Hanford infrastructure or within dedicated cloud resources. A propriety software-as-a-service (SaaS) model of delivering a data catalog (e.g., found in software such as Junar and OpenDataSoft) favors consistency across customers at the expense of customization and configurable roles that are needed for Hanford work. Hosting data on a shared commercial platform places limits on dataset size (maximum of 240 Mb for OpenDataSoft), a significant limitation for HEIDI implementation. EDX, a government data catalog based on CKAN, received the ‘F’ rating due to an inability to incorporate authentication from HLAN into the system. Among platforms rated ‘M’ or ‘E’, only the Socrata platform had a SaaS delivery model. In contrast to other SaaS platforms, Socrata provided custom roles and gateways that allow local datasets to be incorporated into an online catalog. Socrata also complies with the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, a significant benefit for cloud-based management of Hanford data. The other platforms rated ‘M’ or ‘E’, ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, CKAN, and DKAN, provide fully self-hosted options, allowing for greater control and flexibility with the HEIDI catalog. These widely used tools have supportive communities of practice, extensive customization options, and demonstrated deployments that provide evidence that they can meet requirements, often deliver additional desired features, and work well with federal government systems. Completely customized alternatives built on a collection of applications were not evaluated because achieving similar performance to CKAN or DKAN requires substantial resources, especially in the absence of the active communities that have grown to support these tools. ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, Socrata, CKAN, and DKAN were evaluated as strong candidates for successful implementation with HEIDI.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

NbTaV_BCC_SolidSolution_128atoms_VASP6

We performed density functional theory (DFT) calculations for body-centered-cubic (BCC) structures with 128 lattices sites of solid solution ternary alloys niobium-tantalum-vanadium (Nb-Ta-V). The first-principle code that has been used to run the calculations is the closed-source Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package (VASP). The calculations have been collected by sampling chemical compositions across the entire compositional range. The chemical compositions have been sampled by progressively changing the number of atoms per constituent by 8. For each chemical composition of binaries and ternaries, the first-principle calculations have been run for 100 randomized arrangements of the constituents on the BCC lattice sites. We collected data for a total of 10,500 randomized atomic structures over 105 chemical compositions. The calculations have been collected on NERSC-Perlmutter using the VASP 6.3.2. The VASP calculations for every atomic structure have been performed in 2 main steps: 1. Starting from an ideal body-centered-cubic (BCC) structure, geometry optimization with low precision has been executed to perform a preliminary optimization of the atomic structure. The output for this calculations is available in the files 0.CONTCAR, 0.OUTCAR, rlx1.out. 2. Using the atomic structure resulting from the preliminary geometry optimization, a second geometry optimization has been performed using normal precision. The output for this calculations is available in the files CONTCAR, OUTCAR, rlx2.out, vaspout.h5, and vasprun.xml. Every chemical composition sampled across the composition range in the dataset has its own directory. The convention used to name the directories for ternary alloys is AXBYCZ, where A, B, and C refer to the constituents, and X, Y, and Z are positive integers that represent the number of atoms for each constituent and their values still sum up to 128. Each atomic structure associated with a specific chemical composition has its own sub-directory within the directory of the corresponding chemical composition. The sub-directories for each atomic structure for each chemical composition are named 'case-*', where * is a positive integer that spans all the values from 1 through 100, extremes included. The files contained in each sub-directory 'case-*' for each atomic structure are as follows: 1. INCAR: input file that contains various parameters and settings for controlling the behavior of the electronic structure calculations 2. 0.POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system 3. 0.CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 4. 0.OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 5. rlx1.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the first geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 6. POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system after the first geometry optimization has been run at low precision. This represents the input for the second geometry optimization run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 7. CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 8. OUTCARL: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 9. rlx2.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the second geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 10. vaspout.h5: hierarchical HDF5 file containing the inputs and outputs of a VASP calculation. To analyze the data in this file we recommend using py4vasp. This file is only produced if the VASP version used is compiled with HDF5 support 11. vasprun.xml: contains similar information to OUTCAR, but in an xml format. This research is sponsored by the Artificial Intelligence Initiative as part of the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. This work used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, under Directorate Discretionary awards MAT025 (Materials Science) and LRN026 (Machine Learning), and INCITE award MAT201. This work also used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, under award ERCAP0025216.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗