Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Regulatory Development”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Status Report on Regulatory Criteria Applicable to the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML)

Although the interest in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in nuclear energy is increasing rapidly, at present their implementation is limited. This rapid increase in interest is not surprising considering that implementing AI and ML technology would allow for continuous monitoring, facilitate the implementation of predictive maintenance with optimized staffing plans, enable automation and autonomy opportunities that could drastically reduce fixed operation and maintenance costs, and provide training for operations and maintenance. Other industries are using AI for construction, and in the nuclear arena AI could provide great benefit in decommissioning activities. The ability of AI and ML to operate in real time vastly increases their potential impact. Before AI can be used in design, operations, or as a regulatory tool, the specifics on the regulations applicable to the use of AI for nuclear power applications need to be established. The difficulty is that the specific use cases will dictate the applicability of regulations. For example, even within the application domain associated with operations, the regulations might vary if the AI is used to create a virtual reference for plant operations or is used for training, optimization of maintenance intervals, prioritization of maintenance activities, etc. Different still is if the AI is to be used for design or setting technical specifications, which will introduce additional requirements. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing reviews are based on an applicant’s design meeting its performance assessment based on (1) safety goals and objectives, (2) deterministic and/or probabilistic analysis of accident scenarios, and (3) quantitative assessment of design alternatives against the safety goals and objectives using accepted engineering tools, methodologies, and performance criteria. The current regulatory framework does not explicitly address AI or autonomous control. However, as implementing AI technology will require the use of a digital platform, it must meet the requirements of an instrumentation and control (I&C) system. The regulatory requirements for AI, which will be incorporated into the I&C system, will be very dependent on how it is used (i.e., its functionality, safety classification, etc.). The licensing process is primarily risk-based with the identification of components and systems as nonsafety, important to safety, or safety related. A risk-informed approach allows further gradation of components and systems based on risk metrics such as core damage frequency or large early release fractions. Thus, the use cases and the risk categorization of impacted systems and components will determine the regulatory requirements. Regardless of how AI is used it presents new opportunities for risk-informing operating, maintenance, and regulatory decisions. Trustworthiness, transparency, and the ability to validate and verify the results will be paramount in showing that the systems and plant still meet their performance requirements. This report describes the results of research to identify regulatory implications of AI technologies and their uses. Specifically, this report reviews current regulatory guidance relevant to the application of AI for design (including design changes or new designs including advanced reactors), construction, operations, training, maintenance, research, testing, and as a regulatory tool. AI can be automated at different levels from purely informative purposes to autonomous controls. The focus of this review included determination of constraints on the application of AI technology, identification of any regulatory gaps or uncertainties, and clarification of anticipated technical basis information likely to be important for regulatory acceptance of these technologies. Currently, any use of AI at nuclear power plants is focused on nonsafety-related applications. The NRC and other regulatory bodies are evaluating providing guidance to address gaps rather than create new regulations to address the use of AI and ML. This approach seems to be the best to encourage AI development without adding regulatory uncertainty.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

The little skate genome and the evolutionary emergence of wing-like fins

Skates are cartilaginous fish whose body plan features enlarged wing-like pectoral fins, enabling them to thrive in benthic environments. However, the molecular underpinnings of this unique trait remain unclear. Here we investigate the origin of this phenotypic innovation by developing the little skate Leucoraja erinacea as a genomically enabled model. Analysis of a high-quality chromosome-scale genome sequence for the little skate shows that it preserves many ancestral jawed vertebrate features compared with other sequenced genomes, including numerous ancient microchromosomes. Combining genome comparisons with extensive regulatory datasets in developing fins—including gene expression, chromatin occupancy and three-dimensional conformation—we find skate-specific genomic rearrangements that alter the three-dimensional regulatory landscape of genes that are involved in the planar cell polarity pathway. Functional inhibition of planar cell polarity signalling resulted in a reduction in anterior fin size, confirming that this pathway is a major contributor to batoid fin morphology. We also identified a fin-specific enhancer that interacts with several hoxa genes, consistent with the redeployment of hox gene expression in anterior pectoral fins, and confirmed its potential to activate transcription in the anterior fin using zebrafish reporter assays. Our findings underscore the central role of genome reorganization and regulatory variation in the evolution of phenotypes, shedding light on the molecular origin of an enigmatic trait.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

New Report Can Help Reduce Time and Cost to Advance Hydropower

With funding from the U.S. Department of Energy's Water Power Technologies Office, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory examined which regulatory bottlenecks can impact the time, costs, or risks of launching new or refurbishing old hydropower projects. A new report, titled "An Examination of the Hydropower Licensing and Federal Authorization Process," can help hydropower developers navigate complex regulatory currents.

HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

HERO CarbonSAFE Phase 2 Project in the Columbia River Basalt Group

The Hermiston, Oregon Basalt CarbonSAFE Phase II project (HERO CarbonSAFE) seeks to accelerate the deployment of commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects in basaltic rocks. Basalt CO2 storage has several advantages to conventional saline storage reservoirs including 1. The potential for rapid mineralization of CO2, 2. Associated decreases in pressure and CO2 migration risks, 3. Reduced long-term monitoring requirements with respect to plume tracking, 4. Widespread geographic distribution and, 5. Large storage potential due to thickness, porosity, and CO2 interactions with basalt. And for locations such as the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, Iceland, India and Japan, basalts may offer the only economically feasible option for local CO2 storage. However, there are limited field-scale assessments of CO2 storage in basalt, and current carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) permitting and regulatory frameworks were developed for conventional saline reservoirs. HERO CarbonSAFE is designed to address research gaps and uncertainties associated with basalt storage. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of CO2 injection in the deep layered basalts, long-term storage (mineralization), practical approaches for large-scale implementation (50+ million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years), lithology-specific risks, and the technoeconomic potential for CO2 storage in basalts. The HERO CarbonSAFE project will assess feasibility of developing a commercial-scale (50+ million metric tons of CO2) geological storage complex within the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), a layered continental flood basalt complex that underlies Calpine’s natural gas-fired Hermiston Power Project (HPP) in Hermiston, OR (Figure 1). Under this 2-year CarbonSAFE Phase II project, the HERO team will conduct a data acquisition campaign that includes drilling a stratigraphic well to a total depth of ~1,500 m into the thick layered basalts proximal to HPP. A comprehensive well logging and hydrologic testing program will be augmented with new core collected from flow zones and sealing units, and comprehensive laboratory testing to help refine the kinetic rates of mineralization. The newly acquired information will be integrated with existing data from regional wells to correlate basalt injection zone properties to develop storage hub/commercial-scale models. Using these models, the project team will evaluate injection scenarios to define the technical and economic potential for storing a minimum of 50 million metric tons of CO2 over a 30-year period, along with a robust sensitivity analysis on key parameters governing reservoir viability for sustainable injection over a commercial project lifetime. Specific technical objectives of HERO are: (1) assessing the reservoir response of a series of stacked layered reservoir flowtop sequences occurring in this area of the CRBG to commercial-scale injection volumes; (2) extending prior efforts by the project team to characterize the deep layered basalts encountered in regional studies, to leverage prior investments by U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Storage program; (3) leveraging DOE’s mineralization characterization efforts to advance model parametrization for commercial scale injection of CO2 in basalts; (4) conducting risk assessments associated with scaling up to commercial storage hub injection goals, while validating DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) tools, to identify potential constraints that would prevent the CRBG from serving as a commercial-scale storage complex; (5) developing mitigation plans to address identified risks; (6) developing a commercial-scale injection and monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) strategy; (7) utilizing computational models to define and minimize, if possible, the Area of Review (AoR) under Class VI regulations; and (8) developing a robust CO2 management strategy for CRBG that also considers a regional source/sink approach that is responsive to stakeholder needs and industrial demand. Specific institutional objectives are: (1) identifying and developing plans to mitigate the nontechnical challenges associated with the build-out of a commercial-scale storage complex within the CRBG with integrated CO2 sources; (2) implementing the community outreach plan; (3) conducting regulatory research, including a survey of issues related to pore space ownership, MVA and long-term assurance of mineralization-based storage, to support an eventual application for a UIC Class VI permit; (4) advancing the project’s plan for CO2 liability management; and (5) continuing to refine and update the project’s economic model. The final objective is the preparation of a comprehensive Site Characterization Plan that draws upon the technical and institutional feasibility assessments to prepare the project for future commercialization efforts.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Best Practices in Integrated Resource Planning: A guide for planners developing the electricity resource mix of the future

Most states today require regulated electric utilities to file an IRP every 1 to 5 years, and some utilities voluntarily prepare these plans. Planning needs have changed in recent years due to emerging load growth, plant retirements, rising costs, and more extreme weather events – among other factors. In response, Synapse Energy Economics and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory produced a joint report, Best Practices in Integrated Resource Planning: A guide for planners developing the electricity resource mix of the future. The guide offers best planning practices for electricity systems undergoing a major transition, but also contains a wealth of practical guidance to develop technically sophisticated, clearer, more effective, and state-of-the-art electric utility resource plans. The guide is for resource planning professionals and stakeholders involved in resource planning processes. This diverse group includes utility personnel tasked with conducting resource planning and making investment decisions, state regulatory commissions that develop planning guidance and oversee the resource planning process, and stakeholders that represent a wide range of interests—utility consumer advocates, environmental groups, industrial customers, local governments, independent power producers, and many other

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Distributed Energy Resource (DER) Integration Framework: Regulatory Innovation for DER Compensation and Cost Allocation

Existing regulatory approaches to DER lack the precision and granularity necessary to ensure that DER can continue to scale in a cost-effective manner that is aligned with the public interest. To address this need, with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity, Berkeley Lab and Current Energy Group developed an illustrative regulatory framework. By adopting a technology-neutral and modular approach, the framework enables flexibility and scalability for DER providers, utilities, and regulators. Clear price signals and incentives encourage the provision of valuable grid services, while equitable cost allocation promotes efficient use of distribution capacity and interconnection resources. This approach mirrors traditional ratemaking principles for importing customers and positions DERs as integral components of a dynamic and cost-effective energy future.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop: Preprint

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via technoeconomic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for the Annual Technology Baseline (ATB). The ATB data are inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL’s reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the US generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on technoeconomic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next generation technologies such as closed loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

Annual Technology Baseline↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geothermal Power Systems Analysis: Outcome of Industry Stakeholders Workshop

Geothermal cost and performance evaluation implemented via techno-economic assessment (TEA) modeling is critical for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and other geothermal industry stakeholders in assessing the current state of geothermal technologies and to identify existing hurdles to commercially viable geothermal development. The Geothermal Electricity Technology Evaluation Model (GETEM) is a major TEA tool used in estimating the economic feasibility and levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of conventional hydrothermal systems and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Since 2021, GETEM has been transitioning from an intricate spreadsheet model to a user-friendly tool within the System Advisor Model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Apart from enabling an expanded visibility of the geothermal model among other renewable resources, having GETEM in SAM has the advantage of simulation automation, better usability, updates tracking, active user inputs/feedback, and extended financial modeling. GETEM is used in developing supply curves for NREL's Annual Technology Baseline (ATB), which provides inputs to the Renewable Energy Potential (reV) and the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) models. The geothermal module in NREL's reV model assesses the geothermal energy potential in the conterminous United States by defining the geospatial intersection of geothermal resources with existing grid infrastructure within the constraint of land use characteristics. The ReEDS model is a capacity expansion model used for simulating the long-term build-out and operation of the U.S. generation and transmission system based on current energy costs and policies. To ensure enhanced representation of current industry trends in our model transitions and development, we organized a two-day virtual workshop to elicit geothermal industry stakeholder input and recommendations on our current approaches and assumptions on techno-economic, resource assessment, and deployment scenarios modeling of geothermal technologies. Participants included developers, operators, investors, regulatory agencies, system modelers, national laboratory researchers, consultants, and other stakeholders. In this workshop, we gained stakeholder insights on current geothermal plant performance (i.e., capacity factors), updated drilling costs and learning curves, and next-generation technologies such as closed-loop and superhot rock geothermal. Other outcomes from this workshop and its impact on future geothermal development feasibility, resource availability, and capacity expansion studies are compiled and discussed.

annual technology baseline↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-system analysis of offshore geologic carbon storage: a review of open-source data science solutions

Geologic carbon storage projects are maturing worldwide and the footprint of deployment in the offshore is expanding. At present, there are ten projects in operation or that have been completed, more than 50 in construction and development, and dozens of characterization studies completed or underway. Offshore geologic carbon storage offers potential benefits over onshore geologic carbon storage. These offshore projects are generally remote in location, distant from population centers, and avoid complicated pore space rights while having abundant prospective storage potential. Some offshore fields targeted for carbon storage have comparatively fewer prior borehole penetrations except for areas that have been explored for petroleum production, minimizing potential issues such as pressure interference and infrastructure impacts. Yet offshore geologic carbon storage projects face distinctive technical and economic challenges, such as seafloor geohazards (e.g., seabed instability), expensive maritime transport, and meteorological-oceanographic conditions that can damage infrastructure and impact operations. Analytical capabilities and improved computational speeds have advanced engineering, earth and energy sciences in the wake of the arrival of modern data science over the last decade. These advancements have created an opportunity for integrated, multi-systems modeling approaches utilizing artificial intelligence and machine learning that are no longer limited by computational issues. Analytical tools developed alongside this advancement in data science can be leveraged to calibrate the potential advantages and challenges of carbon storage operations in the offshore. New methods and approaches that incorporate data science to analyze multiple aspects of engineered and natural systems can provide insights that complement the characterization and onsite engineering that traditional commercial and operational software addresses. These new methods and approaches can potentially improve the outcome of energy operations and carbon storage. Providing multi-system, science-driven data analytics enhances the knowledge base that offshore developers, operators, and regulatory bodies may draw from to improve offshore site selection and operational efficiency. Here, we provide a brief synopsis of geologic carbon storage efforts to date, an overview of the engineered and natural systems involved in offshore geologic carbon storage, and a review of publicly available, open-source, offshore and/or carbon storage related data- and science-driven tools developed by 2010 or later that are suitable for screening and assessing regions for offshore geologic carbon storage.

artificial intelligence↗
DOE OSTI2023

Single-cell, whole-embryo phenotyping of mammalian developmental disorders

Mouse models are a critical tool for studying human diseases, particularly developmental disorders. However, conventional approaches for phenotyping may fail to detect subtle defects throughout the developing mouse. Here we set out to establish single-cell RNA sequencing of the whole embryo as a scalable platform for the systematic phenotyping of mouse genetic models. We applied combinatorial indexing-based single-cell RNA sequencing to profile 101 embryos of 22 mutant and 4 wild-type genotypes at embryonic day 13.5, altogether profiling more than 1.6 million nuclei. The 22 mutants represent a range of anticipated phenotypic severities, from established multisystem disorders to deletions of individual regulatory regions. We developed and applied several analytical frameworks for detecting differences in composition and/or gene expression across 52 cell types or trajectories. Some mutants exhibit changes in dozens of trajectories whereas others exhibit changes in only a few cell types. We also identify differences between widely used wild-type strains, compare phenotyping of gain- versus loss-of-function mutants and characterize deletions of topological associating domain boundaries. Notably, some changes are shared among mutants, suggesting that developmental pleiotropy might be ‘decomposable’ through further scaling of this approach. Overall, our findings show how single-cell profiling of whole embryos can enable the systematic molecular and cellular phenotypic characterization of mouse mutants with unprecedented breadth and resolution.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2020

UAM Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) UAM Maturity Level (UML) 4

This Vision ConOps is intended as a foundation to engage members of the UAM community and provide a consensus on the future vision of UAM operations. It provides a concept for more detailed discussion and a basis for the exploration of ideas using a common framework to inform the continued development and integration of UAM as part of the broader transportation system. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a range of innovative aviation technologies (small drones, electric aircraft, automated air traffic management, etc.) that are transforming aviation’s role in everyday life, including the movement of goods and people. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft, providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. This concept has generated tremendous interest and industry investment. UAM envisages a future in which advanced technologies and new operational procedures enable practical, cost-effective air travel as an integral mode of transportation in metropolitan areas. It represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. For this reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected UAM as the initial goal of its AAM efforts and the focus of this Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. UAM Community Vision ConOps: This Vision ConOps effort was led by experts from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Deloitte’s Ecosystem Advisory Group (a cohort of advisers with aviation, aerospace, and regulatory expertise). To develop this Vision ConOps, NASA, FAA, and Deloitte built upon the current body of aeronautical research and consulted with more than 100 stakeholder organizations. This UAM community includes entities ranging from legacy aviation leaders to innovators and new market entrants. Stakeholders consulted included the federal government, state and local government, aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local transportation organizations, prospective UAM operators, academia, industry standards-setting bodies, airports, service suppliers, and others (as described in Appendix G). This input was captured through the following methods: • A series of more than two dozen interviews with industry experts, federal regulators, state and local governments, and industry trade groups provided insight into the challenges of UAM integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), as well as technology developments and a variety of perspectives as to how UAM systems will integrate. • A series of two-day community workshops enabling active, detailed engagement of nearly 100 industry, academic, federal, and state stakeholder individuals. These workshops, hosted by NASA and Deloitte, explored UAM concepts in detail, and stakeholders were invited to collaboratively analyze and propose solutions to some of the greatest conceptual challenges behind UAM at an intermediate state. • A review of more than 160 sources of UAM literature from across government, industry, and academia, which are listed in Appendix H. • The public sharing of workshop input and document drafts for review and input across the UAM community. Feedback in the form of more than 1,000 comments and inputs on the document was received from industry groups, individual companies, academia, and government (federal, state, and local), among others. Although effort was made to incorporate inputs from across the UAM stakeholder group, not all comments could ultimately be incorporated in this version. The team resolved conflicting comments or ideas while maintaining consistency with the known direction of regulators and ensuring the document was coherent and consistent. It is recognized that this is a rapidly evolving area and that concepts will likely change over time; as such, this Vision ConOps is a living document and is expected to evolve as concepts mature. The ConOps does, however, provide a vision of UAM concepts and solutions based on the broad insights from across the UAM stakeholder community at the time of its publication and is intended to serve as a UAM North Star for continued research and development of UAM. As a broad Vision ConOps, is not a detailed engineering document; rather, it focuses primarily on outlining a broad, high-level vision across all aspects of a UAM transportation system.

Urban Air Mobility↗
NASA NTRS2023

National Campaign Development Test Executive Summary

NASA’s vision for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) is to provide safe, sustainable, accessible, and affordable aviation for transformational local and intraregional missions and includes the transportation of passengers and cargo as well as aerial work missions, such as infrastructure inspection or search and rescue operations. NASA’s technical expertise, intergovernmental relationships, and high level of public trust will help this technology come to market concurrent with infrastructure readiness, public acceptance, and constructive regulation. By advising and integrating disparate AAM efforts across the country and working collaboratively with the FAA, the National Campaign (NC) objective is to motivate industry progress and support the development of policy, regulatory, and technical standards in a manner that best ensures public safety and benefit to the American people. NC began with the Dry Run and Developmental Test (NC-DT), which served as a pathfinder for collaboration and direct involvement with industry partners in integrated simulation exercises and flight tests. NC-DT culminated with an acoustics-gathering flight test in September 2021 with industry partner Joby’s prototype S4 2.0 air vehicle, which delivered the first foundational baseline of noise levels present in Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) vehicles. Through the DT phase, the NC team built and tested the airspace and range infrastructure while assessing the readiness level of industry partners leading up to future NC events. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of NC-DT.

National Campaign↗
DOE OSTI2021

Myeloid NEMO deficiency promotes tumor immunosuppression partly via MCP1-CCR2 axis

Highlights: • Myeloid-specific deletion of NEMO promotes the tumor growth. • Loss of NEMO in myeloid cells increases the recruitment of M2 macrophages and MDSCs. • NEMO Deficiency Enhances CCR2 Expression in myeloid cells. • CCR2-MCP1 Blockade Protects against the Effects of NEMO Deficiency. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAM), which are found in the tumor microenvironment of solid tumors, not only mediate cancer immune evasion but also promote tumor growth. The transcription factor NF-κB, which is a crucial link between inflammation and tumors, can accelerate tumor occurrence and development. NEMO, the regulatory subunit of the IKK complex, plays a pivotal role in activating the NF-κB signaling pathway. However, the function of myeloid NEMO in the tumor microenvironment remains unclear. Here, we found that conditional knockout of NEMO in myeloid cells promoted tumor growth in a transplanted cancer mouse model. In Nemo{sup fl/fl} lyz-cre{sup +/-} mice, the deletion of Nemo in myeloid cells increased the recruitment of M2 macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) into the tumor, reduced the expression of apoptosis-related proteins, and upregulated the expression of the chemokine receptor CCR2, thereby promoting tumor growth in vivo. Then, we showed that blocking the MCP1-CCR2 pathway could inhibit tumor growth, especially in mice with myeloid NEMO deletion. In this study, we examined the mechanism of NEMO in myeloid cells and explored the role of NEMO in the prevention and treatment of cancer.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hero Carbonsafe Phase 2 Project in the Columbia River Basalt Group: Technical Program Overview

The Hermiston, Oregon Basalt CarbonSAFE Phase II project (HERO CarbonSAFE) seeks to accelerate the deployment of commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects in basaltic rocks. Hermiston is located near the center of the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), which is one of the largest basalt flows in the US. Basalt CO2 storage has potential advantages to conventional saline storage reservoirs including 1. The potential for rapid mineralization of CO2, 2. associated decreases in pressure and CO2 migration risks, 3. reduced long-term monitoring requirements with respect to plume tracking, 4. widespread geographic distribution and, 5. large storage potential due to thickness, porosity, and CO2 interactions with basalt. For locations such as the Pacific Northwest (PNW), Hawaii, Iceland, India and Japan, whose localities are isolated from large sedimentary basins offering conventional saline storage options, basalt may offer the only feasible option for local CO2 storage. However, mineralization/basalt storage still has many uncertainties, as there are limited field-scale assessments of CO2 storage in basalt. There are significant uncertainties hindering the effective implementation of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) in basalt. These include the lack of proven storage capacities, challenges in methodologies for modeling the area of review in igneous formations, limited understanding of mineralization kinetics and timing, and uncertainties in injectivity. Additionally, the domestic availability of specialized services and drilling expertise is constrained, and existing CCUS permitting and regulatory frameworks, originally developed for conventional saline reservoirs, may not adequately address the unique requirements of basalt systems. HERO CarbonSAFE is designed to address major research gaps and uncertainties associated with basalt storage. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of CO2 injection in the deep layered basalts of the CRBG, long-term storage (mineralization), practical approaches for large-scale implementation (50+ million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years), lithology-specific risks, and the technoeconomic potential for CO2 storage in basalts.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1972

Technology assessment and the Food and Drug Administration

The statutory standards underlying the activities of the FDA, and the problems the Agency faces in decision making are discussed from a legal point of view. The premarketing clearance of new drugs and of food additives, the two most publicized and criticized areas of FDA activity, are used as illustrations. The importance of statutory standards in technology assessment in a regulatory setting is developed. The difficulties inherent in the formulation of meaningful standards are recognized. For foods, the words of the statute are inadequate, and for drugs, a statutory recognition of the various other objectives would be useful to the regulator and the regulated.

Kaplan, A. H.↗
NASA NTRS1982

Guidelines for spaceborne microwave remote sensors

A handbook was developed to provide information and support to the spaceborne remote sensing and frequency management communities: to guide sensor developers in the choice of frequencies; to advise regulators on sensor technology needs and sharing potential; to present sharing analysis models and, through example, methods for determining sensor sharing feasibility; to introduce developers to the regulatory process; to create awareness of proper assignment procedures; to present sensor allocations; and to provide guidelines on the use and limitations of allocated bands. Controlling physical factors and user requirements and the regulatory environment are discussed. Sensor frequency allocation achievable performance and usefulness are reviewed. Procedures for national and international registration, the use of non-allocated bands and steps for obtaining new frequency allocations, and procedures for reporting interference are also discussed.

Litman, V.↗
NASA NTRS1990

System considerations, projected requirements and applications for aeronautical mobile satellite communications for air traffic services

The projected application and requirements in the near term (to 1995) and far term (to 2010) for aeronautical mobile services supporting air traffic control operations are addressed. The implications of these requirements on spectrum needs, and the resulting effects on the satellite design and operation are discussed. The U.S. is working with international standards and regulatory organizations to develop the necessary aviation standards, signalling protocols, and implementation methods. In the provision of aeronautical safety services, a number of critical issues were identified, including system reliability and availability, access time, channel restoration time, interoperability, pre-emption techniques, and the system network interfaces. Means for accomplishing these critical services in the aeronautical mobile satellite service (AMSS), and the various activities relating to the future provision of aeronautical safety services are addressed.

Mcdonald, K. D.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗