SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “technical management”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 829 records · Page 46

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Community Energy Planning: Best Practices and Lessons Learned in NREL's Work with Communities

The clean energy transition is accelerating due to local, state, and national actions combined with external market forces. Regardless of where goals are set and decisions are made, clean energy deployment occurs on the ground in communities. As a result, communities increasingly need technical expertise and assistance with planning for and managing the energy transition. Building on decades of work with state, local, and tribal jurisdictions, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) increasingly provides community-driven modeling, analysis, and technical assistance to enable more data-driven and equitable community energy planning. To inform and enhance NREL's capabilities in community energy planning and provide a resource for others working in this space, the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis (JISEA) Sustainable Communities Catalyzer supported this best-practices presentation based on interviews with seasoned NREL practitioners and a literature review on equitable community energy planning. Findings include five best practices for community energy planning that NREL practitioners and others can apply to strengthen their impact: 1) do your homework in preparation for community interactions; 2) be humble, authentic, and honest in your interactions with community members; 3) respect community agency in every step of the process; 4) meet the community where they are; 5) democratize participation.

best practices↗

DOE OSTI2017

Best Practice for the Commercial Deployment of Carbon Dioxide Geologic Storage: Adaptive Management Approach

The Plains CO 2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership is one of seven regional partnerships formed as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP) Initiative. The RCSP Initiative is focused on the safe and long-term storage of CO 2 to support the commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS). To that end, the PCOR Partnership has spent over 10 years developing, testing, and validating the best methods and technologies to conduct the geologic storage of CO 2 (hereafter referred to as CO 2 storage). Through this effort, the PCOR Partnership has formalized an adaptive management approach (AMA) for the commercial development of CO 2 storage projects. The use of this approach, which draws upon the collective experience and lessons learned from the PCOR Partnership, represents best practice for advancing CO 2 storage projects toward commercial deployment. At the heart of the AMA are four technical elements necessary for any successful CO 2 storage project: 1) site characterization; 2) modeling and simulation; 3) risk assessment; and 4) monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA). Each of these elements plays a key role in gathering and assessing site-specific data that provide a fundamental understanding of the storage complex and its performance. While each of the four technical elements can provide useful data independently, integrating them through the AMA yields a streamlined, fit-for-purpose strategy for the commercial deployment of CO 2 storage. Key to this integration and resulting best practice are feedback loops that allow the results of each element to serve as inputs to the others. Each iteration of the AMA creates an improved understanding of the storage complex and thus more targeted and efficient applications of the technical elements. For the purpose of establishing an adaptive management framework, hard lines have been drawn between the technical elements of the AMA. However, in practice, the rapid and seamless interaction between the elements can blur these lines. For example, to aid in the analysis and interpretation of site characterization data, a static geocellular model is often required. While this model development is part of the technical element, modeling and simulation, it is an integral part of the site characterization effort. Likewise, much of the monitoring data collected as part of the MVA technical element can be used to inform site characterization. This back-and-forth flow of data and use of models between the technical elements continues throughout the project.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

Material Recovery and Waste Form Development FY 2015 Accomplishments Report

The Material Recovery and Waste Form Development (MRWFD) Campaign under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) Program is responsible for developing advanced separation and waste form technologies to support the various fuel cycle options defined in the DOE Nuclear Energy Research and Development Roadmap, Report to Congress, April 2010. The FY 2015 Accomplishments Report provides a highlight of the results of the research and development (R&D) efforts performed within the MRWFD Campaign in FY-14. Each section contains a high-level overview of the activities, results, technical point of contact, applicable references, and documents produced during the fiscal year. This report briefly outlines campaign management and integration activities, but primarily focuses on the many technical accomplishments made during FY-15. The campaign continued to utilize an engineering driven-science-based approach to maintain relevance and focus. There was increased emphasis on development of technologies that support near-term applications that are relevant to the current once-through fuel cycle.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Annual Status Report (FY 2020): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds

This annual review provides the projected dose estimates of radionuclide inventories disposed in the 200 East Area Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds (LLBGs) since September 26, 1988. These estimates are calculated using the original dose methodology developed in the performance assessment (PA) analysis (WHC-SD-WM-TI-730). The estimates are compared with requirements of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and performance objectives defined in companion documents DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1and DOE-STD-5002-2017). All performance objectives are currently satisfied, and operational waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063) and waste acceptance practices continue to be sufficient to maintain compliance with performance objectives. Inventory estimates and associated dose estimates from future waste disposal actions are unchanged from previous years’ evaluations that indicate potential impacts well below performance objectives; therefore, future compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is expected. A new PA study was initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2019 for evaluation of active disposal sites within the 200 East and 200 West Areas (Trench 94 in 200 East; Trenches 31 and 34 in 200 West) due to extended time elapsing between the current annual status report and the original PA for the active disposal sites. The new PA for the active disposal sites is expected to be completed in FY 2021. Within the active burial grounds in the 200 East Area, low-level waste and mixed low-level waste will continue to be disposed of in the dedicated U.S. Navy reactor compartment trench at the 218-E-12B Burial Ground (Trench 94). During this reporting period (FY 2020, from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), two reactor compartments were disposed in Trench 94. Results from sorption experiments are summarized for this reporting period to quantify the efficacy of concrete waste forms in retaining key radionuclides (e.g., technetium-99 and iodine-129). The test durations ranged from 1 to 3 months. Continued groundwater monitoring of the 200 East Area LLBGs indicates no groundwater contamination due to LLBG waste. Current assumptions about future land use at the Hanford Site are consistent with PA analysis1 assumptions of a post-closure facility that will not be degraded by human activity. The LLBGs are located in an area identified for waste management and containment of residual contamination. This area will remain after final environmental remediation and the proposed shrinkage of Hanford Site boundaries to small sections within the 200 East and 200 West Areas in the Central Plateau (DOE/EIS-0391). The current closure plan for the LLBGs (DOE/RL-2000-707) estimates that the 200 East LLBGs will be closed in the 2050 timeframe. The Disposal Authorization Statement, other technical basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis are of continued adequacy to meet the performance objectives of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions nor the PA analysis conclusion; therefore, compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and the Disposal Authorization Statement is maintained.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Biodefense Knowledge Management System

After the Amerithrax attacks, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recognized the need to link technical scientific information with law enforcement and national security information in the fight against bioterrorism. The Biodefense Knowledge Center (BKC) was formed to provide timely analysis of technical biodefense-related topics to support DHS and its customers in the interagency. The Biodefense Knowledge Management System (BKMS) was created as the backbone for information management within the BKC. It is a scalable, web-based knowledge management system for organizing disparate data sources. By combining information from 35+ data sources, the BKMS provides a searchable repository for technical information including scientific reports, journal articles, news articles, research funding databases, patent databases, and genomic datasets. The current system contains over 58 million documents and 450 million genomic records, and operates at several classification levels.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2018

Effluent Management Facility Evaporator Bottoms: Waste Streams Formulation and Waste Form Qualification Testing

This report describes the results from grout formulation and cementitious waste form testing performed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS). These results are part of a screening test that investigates grout formulations proposed for encapsulating a wide range of compositions predicted to be present in evaporator bottoms wastes from the Hanford Effluent Management Facility (EMF). This work supports the technical development need for alternative treatment and disposition paths for the EMF evaporator bottoms waste and future direct-feed low-activity waste (DFLAW) operations at the Hanford Site. High-priority activities included simulant production, grout formulation, and cementitious waste form testing. The work contained within this report relates to waste form development and testing, but does not directly support the 2017 Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) performance assessment (PA). However, this work contains information useful for future PA updates [beyond fiscal year (FY) 2017] and future waste form development efforts. These analytical results can be used by (i) cementitious waste form scientists to further the understanding of cementitious leach behavior of contaminants of concern (COCs), (ii) decision makers interested in off-site waste form disposal, and (iii) the U.S. Department of Energy, their Hanford Site contractors, and stakeholders as they continue to assess the IDF PA program at the Hanford Site. The reported results help fill existing data gaps, support final selection of a cementitious waste form for the EMF evaporator bottoms waste, and improve the technical defensibility of long-term waste form risk estimates.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

Effluent Management Facility Evaporator Bottoms: Waste Streams Formulation and Waste Form Qualification Testing

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2011

2011 Performance Assessment Community of Practice Technical Exchange – Summary

The Performance Assessment Community of Practice (PA CoP) was developed in 2008 to improve consistency and quality in the preparation of performance assessments (PAs) and risk assessments across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex. The term, PA, is used to represent all of these modeling applications in this report. The PA CoP goals are to foster the exchange of information among PA practitioners and to share lessons learned from PAs conducted for DOE, commercial disposal facilities, and international entities. Technical exchanges and workshops are a cornerstone of PA CoP activities. Previous technical exchanges have addressed Engineered Barriers (2009 - http://www.cresp.org/education/workshops/pacop/), the Advanced Simulation Capability for Environmental Management and the Cementitious Barriers Partnership (2010 - http://srnl.doe.gov/copexchange/links.htm). Each technical exchange also includes summary presentations regarding activities at DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and other organizations (e.g., International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) as well as a number of presentations from selected sites to provide insight and perspective from on-going modeling activities. Through the deployment of PA Assistance Teams, the PA CoP has also been engaged in the development of new PAs across the DOE Complex. As a way of improving consistency in the preparation of new PAs, the teams provide technical advice and share experiences, noteworthy practices, and lessons learned from previous Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) reviews. Teams have provided support for PAs at Hanford, Idaho, Paducah and Portsmouth. The third annual PA CoP Technical Exchange was held on May 25-26, 2011 in Atlanta, GA. The PA CoP Steering Committee Meeting held its first meeting on May 24 prior to the Technical Exchange. Decision making using models and software quality assurance were the topical emphasis for the exchange. A new feature at the 2011 technical exchange was the use of panel discussions to solicit feedback from regulators and practitioners. This report summarizes discussions and recommendations from the steering committee meeting and presentations and feedback obtained at the technical exchange. Appendix I includes the steering committee meeting agenda and Appendix II includes the agenda for the technical exchange and a screenshot of the presentations and video files that are available online.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 83: Development of the DOE Mercury Management Strategy

This panel discussion addressed the current efforts to develop an integrated strategy for managing the mercury (Hg) challenges across the DOE complex, including challenges in remediation of Hg contamination and related ongoing or planned technology development efforts across the EM complex. Panel members discussed opportunities for collaboration in defining and implementing a mercury management strategy for the various sites, national laboratories, and contractors and for all to provide technical information for DOE to develop an integrated, cost effective Hg management strategy. Emphasis of the panel was placed on challenges at the Oak Ridge Reservation and the Savannah River Site. Opening remarks were made by Ming Zhu. Ming stated that the Academy of Sciences recently released a report on the challenges of addressing Hg in the environment; the report leveraged recent remedial efforts. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Approach to Addressing Mercury at Y-12 (Brian Henry, US DOE OREM (USA)); 2 - Mercury Management Strategy (Renee Echols, FireWater Associates, LLC (USA)); 3 - Integration of Science to Address Mercury Clean-up Challenge (Eric Pierce, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (USA)); 4 - Mercury Related Research and Development by CRESP (Kevin Brown, Vanderbilt University - CRESP (USA)); 5 - Lessons Learned from D and D of West COLEX (Kent Fortenberry, UCOR (USA)); 6 - Mercury in the SRS Liquid Waste System (Richard Edwards, Savannah River Remediation (USA)); 7 - TDD Program on Mercury at Savannah River (Bill Wilmarth, Savannah River National Laboratory (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2012

Waste-Incidental-to-Reprocessing Evaluation for the West Valley Demonstration Project Vitrification Melter - 12167

The Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that the vitrification melter used in the West Valley Demonstration Project can be disposed of as low-level waste (LLW) after completion of a waste-incidental-to-reprocessing evaluation performed in accordance with the evaluation process of DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. The vitrification melter - which consists of a ceramic lined, electrically heated box structure - was operated for more than 5 years melting and fusing high-level waste (HLW) slurry and glass formers and pouring the molten glass into 275 stainless steel canisters. Prior to shutdown, the melter was decontaminated by processing low-activity decontamination flush solutions and by extracting molten glass from the melter cavity. Because it could not be completely emptied, residual radioactivity conservatively estimated at approximately 170 TBq (4,600 Ci) remained in the vitrification melter. To establish whether the melter was incidental to reprocessing, DOE prepared an evaluation to demonstrate that the vitrification melter: (1) had been processed to remove key radionuclides to the maximum extent technically and economically practical; (2) would be managed to meet safety requirements comparable to the performance objectives for LLW established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); and (3) would be managed by DOE in accordance with DOE's requirements for LLW after it had been incorporated in a solid physical form with radionuclide concentrations that do not exceed the NRC concentration limits for Class C LLW. DOE consulted with the NRC on the draft evaluation and gave other stakeholders an opportunity to submit comments before the determination was made. The NRC submitted a request for additional information in connection with staff review of the draft evaluation; DOE provided the additional information and made improvements to the evaluation, which was issued in January 2012. DOE considered the NRC Technical Evaluation Report as well as comments received from other stakeholders prior to making its determination that the vitrification melter is not HLW, does not require permanent isolation in a geologic repository, and can be disposed of as LLW. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2013

Assessment of Brine Management for Geologic Carbon Sequestration

Geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) is the injection of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), typically captured from stationary emission sources, into deep geologic formations to prevent its entry into the atmosphere. Active pilot facilities run by regional United States (US) carbon sequestration partnerships inject on the order of one million metric tonnes (mt) CO 2 annually while the US electric power sector emits over 2000 million mt-CO 2 annually. GCS is likely to play an increasing role in US carbon mitigation initiatives, but scaling up GCS poses several challenges. Injecting CO 2 into sedimentary basins raises fluid pressure in the pore space, which is typically already occupied by naturally occurring, or native, brine. The resulting elevated pore pressures increase the likelihood of induced seismicity, of brine or CO 2 escaping into potable groundwater resources, and of CO 2 escaping into the atmosphere. Brine extraction is one method for pressure management, in which brine in the injection formation is brought to the surface through extraction wells. Removal of the brine makes room for the CO 2 and decreases pressurization. Although the technology required for brine extraction is mature, this form of pressure management will only be applicable if there are cost-effective and sustainable methods of disposing of the extracted brine. Brine extraction, treatment, and disposal may increase the already substantial capital, energy, and water demands of Carbon dioxide Capture and Sequestration (CCS). But, regionally specific brine management strategies may be able to treat the extracted water as a source of revenue, energy, and water to subsidize CCS costs, while minimizing environmental impacts. By this approach, value from the extracted water would be recovered before disposing of any resulting byproducts. Until a price is placed on carbon, we expect that utilities and other CO 2 sources will be reluctant to invest in capital intensive, high risk GCS projects; early technical, economic, and environmental assessments of brine management are extremely valuable for determining the potential role of GCS in the US. We performed a first order feasibility and economic assessment, at three different locations in the US, of twelve GCS extracted-water management options, including: geothermal energy extraction, desalination, salt and mineral harvesting, rare-earth element harvesting, aquaculture, algae biodiesel production, road de-icing, enhanced geothermal system (EGS) recharge, underground reinjection, landfill disposal, ocean disposal, and evaporation pond disposal. Three saline aquifers from different regions of the US were selected as hypothetical GCS project sites to encompass variation in parameters that are relevant to the feasibility and economics of brine disposal. The three aquifers are the southern Mt. Simon Sandstone Formation in the Illinois Basin, IL; the Vedder Formation in the southern San Joaquin Basin, CA; and the Jasper Interval in the eastern Texas Gulf Basin, TX. These aquifers are candidates for GCS due to their physical characteristics and their close proximity to large CO 2 emission sources. Feasibility and impacts were calculated using one mt-CO 2 injected as the functional unit of brine management. Scenarios were performed for typical 1000MW coal-fired power plants (CFPP) that incurred an assumed 24 percent carbon capture energy penalty (EP), injected 90 percent of CO 2 emissions (~9 million mt- CO 2 injected annually), and treated extracted water onsite. Net present value (NPV), land requirements, laws and regulations, and technological limits were determined for each stage of disposal, and used to estimate feasibility. The boundary of the assessment began once extracted water was brought to the surface, and ended once the water evaporated, was injected underground, or was discharged into surface water bodies. Results of the assessment were generated, stored, and analyzed using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and ESRI Geographical Information System (GIS) maps. Conclusions about the relative benefits and impacts of alternative brine-management strategies were highly sensitive to local climate and weather, and aquifer water chemistry. The NPV of certain scenarios ranged from -$50/mt-CO 2 (a cost) to +$10/mt-CO 2 (revenue). The land footprint of the scenarios in this study ranged from <1 km 2 to 100 km 2 . Brine extraction as a pressure management tool for GCS has potential for improving the economics and for minimizing the environmental impacts of CCS. In order to maximize this potential, careful analysis of each saline aquifer and region must be conducted to determine a regionally appropriate brine use sequence (BUS) at the time of site selection. Models that use GIS will be essential tools in determining such sequences for individual CFPP. Future studies that perform risk and life cycle assessments (LCA) of BUS scenarios, incorporate additional impact metrics into the BUS model, and enhance the temporal sensitivity of the model would improve the robustness of this regional assessment method.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2011

Repository performance confirmation.

Repository performance confirmation links the technical bases of repository science and societal acceptance. This paper explores the myriad aspects of what has been labeled performance confirmation in U.S. programs, which involves monitoring as a collection of distinct activities combining technical and social significance in radioactive waste management. This paper is divided into four parts: (1) A distinction is drawn between performance confirmation monitoring and other testing and monitoring objectives; (2) A case study illustrates confirmation activities integrated within a long-term testing and monitoring strategy for Yucca Mountain; (3) A case study reviews compliance monitoring developed and implemented for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; and (4) An approach for developing, evaluating and implementing the next generation of performance confirmation monitoring is presented. International interest in repository monitoring is exhibited by the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme 'Monitoring Developments for Safe Repository Operation and Staged Closure' (MoDeRn) Project. The MoDeRn partners are considering the role of monitoring in a phased approach to the geological disposal of radioactive waste. As repository plans advance in different countries, the need to consider monitoring strategies within a controlled framework has become more apparent. The MoDeRn project pulls together technical and societal experts to assimilate a common understanding of a process that could be followed to develop a monitoring program. A fundamental consideration is the differentiation of confirmation monitoring from the many other testing and monitoring activities. Recently, the license application for Yucca Mountain provided a case study including a technical process for meeting regulatory requirements to confirm repository performance as well as considerations related to the preservation of retrievability. The performance confirmation plan developed as part of the Yucca Mountain license application identified a broad suite of monitoring activities. A revision of the plan was expected to winnow the number of activities down to a manageable size. As a result, an objective process for the next stage of performance confirmation planning was developed as an integral part of an overarching long-term testing and monitoring strategy. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant compliance monitoring program at once reflects its importance to stakeholders while demonstrating adequate understanding of relevant monitoring parameters. The compliance criteria were stated by regulation and are currently monitored as part of the regulatory rule for disposal. At the outset, the screening practice and parameter selection were not predicated on a direct or indirect correlation to system performance metrics, as was the case for Yucca Mountain. Later on, correlation to performance was established, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant continues to monitor ten parameters originally identified in the compliance certification documentation. The monitoring program has proven to be effective for the technical intentions and societal or public assurance. The experience with performance confirmation in the license application process for Yucca Mountain helped identify an objective, quantitative methodology for this purpose. Revision of the existing plan would be based on findings of the total system performance assessment. Identification and prioritization of confirmation activities would then derive from performance metrics associated with performance assessment. Given the understanding of repository performance confirmation, as reviewed in this paper, it is evident that the performance confirmation program for the Yucca Mountain project could be readily re-engaged if licensing activities resumed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2015

DOE-Managed HLW and SNF Research: FY15 EBS and Thermal Analysis Work Package Status.

This report examines the technical elements necessary to evaluate EBS concepts and perform thermal analysis of DOE-Managed SNF and HLW in the disposal settings of primary interest – argillite, crystalline, salt, and deep borehole. As the disposal design concept is composed of waste inventory, geologic setting, and engineered concept of operation, the engineered barrier system (EBS) falls into the last component of engineered concept of operation. The waste inventory for DOE-Managed HLW and SNF is closely examined, with specific attention to the number of waste packages, the size of waste packages, and the thermal output per package. As expected, the DOE-Managed HLW and SNF inventory has a much smaller volume, and hence smaller number of canisters, as well a lower thermal output, relative to a waste inventory that would include commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF). A survey of available data and methods from previous studies of thermal analysis indicates that, in some cases, thermo-hydrologic modeling will be necessary to appropriately address the problem. This report also outlines scope for FY16 work -- a key challenge identified is developing a methodology to effectively and efficiently evaluate EBS performance in each disposal setting on the basis of thermal analyses results.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Energy Efficient Waste Heat Coupled Forward Osmosis for Effluent Water Management at Coal-Fired Power Plants

This project sought to evaluate the technical and economic viability of the Aquapod©, a transformational low energy (<200 kJ/kg water) waste heat coupled forward osmosis (FO) technology, to manage effluents, meet cooling water demands, and achieve water conservation in a coal-fired power plant environment. The Aquapod© process is innovative because it is heat-driven, avoids the evaporation of water, and uses no toxic chemicals such as ammonia or amines. The Aquapod© process accomplishes this using an aqueous two-phase system (ATPS) coupled FO process. The evaluation revealed that the Aquapod© process offers a pathway to exploit waste heat resources within a power plant to achieve flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater volume reduction and water recovery with minimal pretreatment. Water recovery of 80% from FGD wastewater was achieved with minimal pretreatment, exceeding the project target of 50%. The estimated electrical energy of 2.16 kWh/m 3 of water produced for the Aquapod© process met the project target of < 3.6 kWh/m 3 . The heat required for the process operation was approximately 186 kJ/kg of produced water, which was slightly lower than the project target of 200 kJ/kg. The estimated treatment cost for installing and operating the Aquapod© process in conjunction with a spray dryer evaporator to achieve zero-liquid discharge (ZLD) of the 100 gpm FGD wastewater was $13.24/m 3 over a 30-year lifetime. As a point of reference, this study’s host power plant currently incurs a cost of $3.70/m 3 – $8.87/m3 on a discharged volume basis to discharge its wastewater into the publicly owned treatment works (POTW) after physical-chemical treatment. Therefore, the Illinois power plant would incur an incremental cost increase of $4.37/m 3 – 9.54/m 3 to achieve ZLD using the Aquapod© and spray dryer combination. Ample opportunities exist to further lower the ZLD capital and operating costs in the next design iteration to attain pipe parity at the higher end of the site treatment costs.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2023

Performance Assessment Closure Plan for the Active Low-Level Burial Ground Trenches 31, 34, and 94 at the Hanford Site

This report documents the closure plan for the active trenches within the Low-Level Burial Grounds of the Hanford Site, namely Trenches 31 and 34 in the 200 West Area and Trench 94 in 200 East Area. This closure plan is developed to meet the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. It is one of the several technical basis documents, along with the performance assessment (DOE/RL-2021-26, Performance Assessment of Active Trenches in 200 East and West Low-Level Burial Grounds at the Hanford Site), which is required for maintaining the Operating Disposal Authorization Statement as described in DOE-STD-5002-2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

The Safety of Continuing Therapeutic Anticoagulation During Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval: A 6-Year Retrospective Review from a Tertiary Centre

Purpose: Assess the safety of inferior vena cava (IVC) filter retrieval in patients taking anticoagulation, compared to a non-anticoagulated cohort. Materials and Methods: Single-centre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent IVC filter retrieval between January 2012 and February 2018. Information about patient demographics, anticoagulation, tilt, major and minor complications was collected. Major complications were defined as: IVC injury from the filter retrieval, retained fragment of filter, filter fracture and filter embolisation. Minor complications were defined as: neck haematoma and puncture site infection. Results: Total of 357 patients (age 18–95, Male: 231) underwent IVC filter retrieval, comprising of Cook Celect Platinum, Cook Celect, and ALN-branded filters. Of these 182 patients were on anticoagulation and 175 patients were not on anticoagulation, based on the indication for the filter (thrombosis or prophylaxis) and at the discretion of the referring unit who were managing the anticoagulation. IVC filter retrieval was technically successful in 349 patients. Five major complications (1.4% of retrievals) were recorded and no minor complications (0% of retrievals). In the anticoagulation cohort, there were two major complications (1.1% of retrievals) both related to IVC injury. In the non-anticoagulated cohort, there were three major complications (1.7% of retrievals) relating to filter embolisation, IVC injury, and filter fracture. Conclusions: IVC filter retrieval is a safe procedure with a low complication rate. Being on anticoagulation does not increase the risk of a major complication or change the management of major complication compared with a non-anticoagulated cohort. IVC filter retrieval is safe to perform in patients currently taking prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation based on our cohort. Level of Evidence: Level 3, retrospective cohort study.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2025

University Data Management Pilot Utilizing the Nuclear Research Data System

Background In 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a memo that significantly reshaped the landscape of access to federally funded research. The memo mandated that all taxpayer-funded research be made available to the public without delay upon publication, without an embargo period, superseding the 2013 OSTP public access policy. This public access policy promotes transparency and the democratization of knowledge, ensuring that the fruits of scientific endeavors funded by federal agencies could be immediately accessed and built upon by scientists, educators, students, and the public at large. To implement the requirements of the OSTP guidance and DOE Public Access Plan, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has implemented public access plan guidance and has identified several areas where better data management practices would further expand public access to important nuclear energy related scientific data, reports, and other technical products. Significant NE supported efforts are already underway for data management and public access to important nuclear energy related data.1 2 To address gaps in data management practices, and improve retention and accessibility of data, NE is actively exploring enhanced data management options utilizing its high-performance computing resources administered by its Nuclear Scientific User Facility Program. A newly piloted system, the Nuclear Research Data System (NRDS) acts as a portal for data collection and dissemination. Nuclear Energy University Program Research and Development Portfolio According to Web of Science, NEUP has produced 2,345 journal publication that have been cited more than 61,000 times3 and countless conference proceedings. These publications are publicly available through OSTI.gov and in the open literature. Additional scientific and technical products including project milestones that are not publications and NEUP project final reports are vetted through OSTI.gov and released once reviewed and approved by DOE. Since 2009, NEUP has awarded close to 1,000 different R&D projects in technical areas across the NE research programs. As of June 2023, 512 NEUP reports are publicly available on OSTI. The underlying data for projects is still held at universities, and data transfer, co-location, and dissemination has not occurred in a systematic way. NEUP data is currently accessible through myriad university-based data repositories, or through direct requests to PIs. The program identified this patchwork of repositories, or often lack of publicly available data, as a significant barrier to an organized, accessible, and comprehensive solution to sharing data with the larger nuclear energy community. Approach The goal of this pilot project is to establish a pathway to a consolidated long-term repository for NEUP project data. To accomplish this goal, the pilot strives to accomplish the following objectives: Establish data collection standards, including a standard set of required supplementary information to contextualize and support raw data files. Work with the HPC group collect and upload information and to modify the NRDS system, as needed, to support a standardized approach. Resolve potential barriers to successful roll out of an expanded data collection strategy, including modifying data management plan guidelines and establishing a document and data release process that accounts for potential intellectual property and/or export control concerns. Results Overall, the pilot was successful in collecting 8,982 raw and processes data files, 220 reports, 56 calibration files, and 5,931 other supplementary documents. Supplementary documents included experimental plans, methods, journal publications and conference proceedings, milestone reports, and final reports. Figure 2 shows the number of data sets and supplementary project information provided by each project. Projects has significantly different input, depending on experimental data produced and completeness of the datasets provided.

Data collection↗