Nonproliferation and National Security at BNL [Slides]
Abstract not provided.
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Abstract not provided.
Environmental Protection and Compliance Division (EPC-DO) owns institutional responsibility for compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental requirements. EPC SMEs want to know about all activities and projects being conducted at the Lab. Our regulatory framework requires LANL customers to use the Integrated Review Tool which includes PRID, EXID, and Siting. SD400 Environmental Management System, Rev 5 states all new/modified work, activities, operations and projects at the Lab must be reviewed for applicable environmental requirements through the IRT.
Simulated previous quantum chemistry experiments using JAQAL (Just Another Quantum Assembly Language), matching expected results. Lays the groundwork for QSCOUT (Quantum Scientific Computing Open User Testbed) users to conduct their own quantum experiments, and tests the capabilities of the JAQAL language.
This report describes the high-level accomplishments from the Plasma Science and Engineering Grand Challenge LDRD at Sandia National Laboratories. The Laboratory has a need to demonstrate predictive capabilities to model plasma phenomena in order to rapidly accelerate engineering development in several mission areas. The purpose of this Grand Challenge LDRD was to advance the fundamental models, methods, and algorithms along with supporting electrode science foundation to enable a revolutionary shift towards predictive plasma engineering design principles. This project integrated the SNL knowledge base in computer science, plasma physics, materials science, applied mathematics, and relevant application engineering to establish new cross-laboratory collaborations on these topics. As an initial exemplar, this project focused efforts on improving multi-scale modeling capabilities that are utilized to predict the electrical power delivery on large-scale pulsed power accelerators. Specifically, this LDRD was structured into three primary research thrusts that, when integrated, enable complex simulations of these devices: (1) the exploration of multi-scale models describing the desorption of contaminants from pulsed power electrodes, (2) the development of improved algorithms and code technologies to treat the multi-physics phenomena required to predict device performance, and (3) the creation of a rigorous verification and validation infrastructure to evaluate the codes and models across a range of challenge problems. These components were integrated into initial demonstrations of the largest simulations of multi-level vacuum power flow completed to-date, executed on the leading HPC computing machines available in the NNSA complex today. These preliminary studies indicate relevant pulsed power engineering design simulations can now be completed in (of order) several days, a significant improvement over pre-LDRD levels of performance.
These slides are intended for discussion/presentation of results obtained at multiple participating laboratories of a recent inter-laboratory measurement round robins.
The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish 10 buildings and one structure in Area 12 Camp at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada, to meet current and future National Weapons Science, Global and Homeland Security Program, and Environmental Management mission requirements and to reduce dangers to site workers from some of these resources. These demolitions constitute an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 U.S.C. § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 U.S.C. § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, 36 C.F.R. Part 800. These resources were recorded and evaluated as individually ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NRHP) by Menocal and Shaw (2019). Upon review by the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and internal review by Desert Research Institute (DRI) and NNSA/NFO staff, it was determined that these resources needed to be rerecorded and evaluated in relation to what appeared to be a National Register-eligible Historic District made up of the entirety of Area 12 Camp. Based on preliminary information, it appeared that all 11 resources would likely be contributing elements of that historic district. With that assumption in mind, recording of the entire proposed Area 12 Camp Historic District was done for three purposes. First, it would result in a definitive significance evaluation of the 11 resources in question. Second, recording of the entire camp would be offered as an appropriate mitigation measure for the demolition of these resources. Third, it would present an essential background for future management of resources within the district boundaries. Prior to the present survey, Area 12 Camp had not yet been systematically recorded; therefore, DRI surveyed an area of approximately 229 acres for architectural resources. This effort resulted in the identification, recording, and evaluation of the Area 12 Camp Historic District (SHPO Resource No. D372), including the identification of its contributing components. This district is recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C. It is unevaluated under Criteria B and D. The Area 12 Historic District contains 71 Principal Resources, which include landscapes, buildings, and structures. Of these resources, 69 (including 10 of the 11 resources to be removed) are recommended as contributing elements of the historic district during its period of significance corresponding to nuclear testing from 1960 through 1992. During most of the Cold War, the government reservation now called the NNSS was named the Nevada Test Site (NTS).
The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) managed the overall Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase III project and The Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), at the University of Texas at Austin, managed all activities associated with the Early Test field site near Cranfield, Mississippi (the Early Test or Cranfield Project). The SECARB project at Cranfield was focused downdip of the oil rim and on demonstrating the stacked nature of the storage potential at this location: enhanced oil recovery (EOR) up-dip and saline downdip. Because the injection for EOR continued after the SECARB project ended, no actual post-injection period occurred. However, information collected during the SECARB-monitored injection period, including pressure and CO2 plume position, was utilized in an EOR carbon lifecycle assessment. The carbon lifecycle assessment provided insight on tracking injection fronts and production efficiencies across the field. To complete the post injection assessment, taking into account the continuing EOR period after closeout of SECARB field activities, this report provides data and analysis done under another DOE-funded project. The follow up project focused on the carbon lifecycle of EOR and included an assessment of EOR at as-operated and under possible future scenarios. This work was published by Hossieni et al. (2018) and Hosseininoosheri (2019).
The Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) managed the overall Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Phase III project and The Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG), at the University of Texas at Austin, managed all activities associated with the Early Test field site near Cranfield, Mississippi (the Early Test or Cranfield Project). BEG was assisted in the management of site activities by Sandia Technologies (Sandia). BEG and Sandia implemented reporting procedures that included monthly and quarterly technical progress reports, as well as periodic reporting on key field activities. Subsequent sections of this report catalog the field activities and are organized in a semiannual chronology. The Cranfield Project was located approximately 12 miles east of Natchez, Mississippi. Denbury Onshore, LLC, began operating a commercial CO 2 flood of the field (using the subsurface injection of CO 2 for EOR) in June 2008. Carbon dioxide from the Jackson Dome, a natural source near Jackson, Mississippi, was delivered to the Cranfield oilfield via pipeline. Beginning in October 2008, the SECARB Early Test team characterized the surface and subsurface of the Cranfield site. During the field test CO 2 was injected into the lower Tuscaloosa Formation, a regionally extensive saline formation with the potential to hold millions of tons of CO 2 emissions. By January 2015, the team injected more than 11 million metric tons of CO 2 and monitored a total stored CO 2 mass of 5,326,975 metric tons. SECARB’s study operations occurred in four integrated research program areas within Cranfield field: (1) the High Volume Injection Test area (HiVIT); (2) the Detailed Area of Study (DAS); (3) the Geomechanical area; and (4) the near-surface observatory, also called the “P-site.” Carbon dioxide injection activities were conducted at the HiVIT and the DAS. Figure 1.1-1 provides a depiction of the DAS.
Risk Assessment (RA) of RCSP Phase 3 sites is a DOE requirement and valuable to DOE’s program because this process encourage careful consideration of elements that could damage an individual project, or if severe ,damage credibility and public commercial acceptance of the sequestration process. Poor outcomes even from small projects can have negative consequences larger than the cost to the individual project. In addition, practice in risk assessment compared to project evolution is needed as part of the confidence-building toward future large scale, long term industrial activities.
Abstract not provided.
This Federal Water Management Resource Guide provides direction to Federal agencies on how optimize water use at Federal facilities, use water balance analysis methods, identify design elements and procurement best practices, and expand use of alternative water. It provides best practices for managing water to be considered when developing or improving an effective facility water management program. PNNL developed this guide for the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). FEMP was directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop a Federal Water Management Resource Guide per the Implementing Instructions for Executive Order (E.O.) 13834, Efficient Federal Operations. This document serves to satisfy this requirement in order to provide best water management practices within the Federal Government.
This Federal Water Management Resource Guide provides direction to Federal agencies on how optimize water use at Federal facilities, use water balance analysis methods, identify design elements and procurement best practices, and expand use of alternative water. It provides best practices for managing water to be considered when developing or improving an effective facility water management program. PNNL developed this guide for the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). FEMP was directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop a Federal Water Management Resource Guide per the Implementing Instructions for Executive Order (E.O.) 13834, Efficient Federal Operations. This document serves to satisfy this requirement in order to provide best water management practices within the Federal Government.
The objective of this project was to eliminate and/or render bulk agent unusable by a threat entity via neutralization and/or polymerization of the bulk agent using minimal quantities of additives. We proposed the in situ neutralization and polymerization of bulk chemical agents (CAs) by performing reactions in the existing CA storage container via wet chemical approaches using minimal quantities of chemical based materials. This approach does not require sophisticated equipment, fuel to power generators, electricity to power equipment, or large quantities of decontaminating materials. By utilizing the CA storage container as the batch reactor, the amount of logistical resources can be significantly reduced. Fewer personnel are required since no sophisticated equipment needs to be set up, configured, or operated. Employing the CA storage container as the batch reactor enables the capability to add materials to multiple containers in a short period of time as opposed to processing one container at a time for typical batch reactor approaches. In scenarios where a quick response is required, the material can be added to all the CA containers and left to react on its own without intervention. Any attempt to filter the CA plus material solution will increase the rate of reaction due to increased agitation of the solution.
The National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Field Office has undertaken a Section 110 current condition assessment of the unanticipated discovery of an aviation crash site in Nye County, Nevada. Because no undertaking is planned, an area of potential effect (APE) was not defined. A study area of 0.55 acres was established to delineate the general extent of the debris scatter and establish a boundary for the cultural resource documentation of the site by Desert Research Institute (DRI). The Douglas AD-2 Skyraider drone crash site (26NY17011) is recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Significance Criterion A, as a physical remnant of Project 5.1 “Atomic Weapons Effects on AD Type Aircraft in Flight,” one of the series of military effects studies conducted as part of Shot Simon during Operation Upshot-Knothole in 1953. Furthermore, the site is eligible under Criterion D because closer examination of the debris could address research questions concerning the Type 1 Remote Control Equipment developed by the Naval Air Experimental Station that was onboard to remotely pilot the aircraft.
The goal of this task is to develop an assessment to identify data needed to advance geologic storage projects, with a focus on the SECARB region. The GCCC team considers the needs of CO2 source, storage, and utilization operators and stakeholders, finance and insurance institutions, state and local government relators and agencies, property owners, local stakeholders at prospective storage complexes, and environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Many of these needs are spelled out in the requirements of the Class VI permit. However, at the initial stages of project development, the workflow will not start with permit writing. A number of other factors must be evaluated prior to this major investment. The team’s goal in this report is to inventory the range of typical needs for a wide variety of projects. For subsequent tasks, the team will consider how these needs vary among projects and through the stages of investment, so that project developers can plan the early stages of capitalization.
Task 4 of the SECARB-USA Project is designed to evaluate the regional needs and challenges for the development of a safe and environmentally sound CO 2 transport infrastructure. This infrastructure would transport CO 2 capture from power generating plants and/or industrial sources and distribute it to oil fields for associated storage in EOR operations, saline storage, and/or other suitable storage sites. The objective of this report on Sub-Basin Prospective Areas (Deliverable 4.1.a), is to provide the framework for understanding how regional infrastructure development could occur. The sub-basin prospective areas, in conjunction with the locations of CO 2 sources and pipeline infrastructure (for source-sink matching networks), form the basis for the analysis that will be performed in the Techno-Economic Analysis of Infrastructure Buildout Scenarios (Deliverable 4.1.b).
SECARB-USA Deliverable 4.2.1 utilizes the outputs from the Needs Assessment (Subtask 2.1) to develop a data quality methodology. Many types of data are needed to evaluate a site for technical and financial viability. Several inventories of data types have been produced (for example NETL, 2010). The objective here is to organize the data types so that the needs met are specified. From this cross index (Table 1 in the Appendix), it will be possible in future tasks to (1) determine, on a site-specific basis, how much of each data type is required at each stage of a project to meet the need, and conversely (2) to further specify and define the data collection methods applied such that the data are tailored to fit that need. Derivative tables can then be developed to semi-quantitively evaluate the extent to which need is critical for early go/no-go decision points, or if it is more important than average, requiring faster or larger capitalization and spend to meet the need. In an additional step, the current availability of data for a site can be semi-quantitively assessed. From the table of data criticality and the table of data availability, site-specific cost for meeting the data needs can be determined, and allow a pre-permit spend estimated for a portfolio of projects.