Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Facility location”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

LOCOMOTIVES - Comprehensive Impact and Cost Assessment Framework of Carbon Lowering Approaches for the US Rail Freight System

The goal of this project is to develop a tool to aid railroads and other stakeholders assess and approach the decarbonization of freight rail operations by identifying new, viable low-carbon energy storage and conversion systems for future locomotive systems and how they should be deployed on the existing US freight rail network. In the first quarter, the project focused on collecting data, establishing a simulation workflow, and engaging industry through the creation of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB). In the second quarter, the project focused on selecting fuel pathways and powertrain technologies, setting performance targets, conducting a techno-economic analyses, and developing the simulation framework that would serve as the backbone of the future toolhead. The third quarter involved developing an industry-oriented interactive dashboard powered by a five-step sequential framework, as well as holding industry advisory board meetings as per the initial technology-to-market plan. In the remaining project quarters, the NUFRIEND dashboard were fine-tuned with the help of IAB member feedback and in-depth scenario analyses were conducted to support the techno-economic analysis of energy sources. Additionally, dashboard documentation, project insights, and open-source code on GitHub were prepared and released. Throughout the project, the team completed testing and analysis of all model components, integrated all initial test scenarios, and conducted stakeholder engagement. Lower-carbon drop-in fuels can be deployed as admixtures and are considered uniform across the network at a desired penetration rate, while hydrogen and battery-electric technology deployment poses a more complex problem as they require significant investments to be made in the siting of refueling/charging facilities and the replacement of locomotive fleets. Thus, strategies for locating and sizing refueling/charging facilities on a railroad’s network to meet their energy demands were developed to inform deployment decisions. To address this challenge, the Northwestern University Freight Rail Infrastructure & Energy Network Decarbonization (NUFRIEND) framework presents a five-step sequential framework to select O-D paths, locate facilities, reroute flows, size facilities, and evaluate the deployment for alternative energy sources that require locomotive powertrains to be converted and new refueling infrastructure to be deployed. The NUFRIEND Framework is an industry-oriented tool for simulating the deployment of new energy technologies across the US freight rail network. The framework provides a comprehensive network-level optimization and scenario simulation tool for decarbonizing the freight rail sector, addressing the uncertainties surrounding technological developments by supporting sensitivity analyses for different operational and technological parameters through a transparent and flexible input module. It offers practical alternatives to diesel locomotives and can be applied for any railroad considering the specific network structure and freight demand, outputting evaluation metrics for the associated emissions and costs relative to diesel operations. A number of relevant simulation scenarios were run and analyzed for key insights on the value of different alternative technologies for freight rail decarbonization. The project developments and findings have been presented at numerous conferences and events.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Investigating Spatial Variability of Aerosol, Cloud Condensation Nuclei, and Ice Nucleating Particles in Mountainous Terrain Field Campaign Report

The U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric System Research (ASR)-supported Surface Atmosphere Integrated Field Laboratory (SAIL) campaign in the East River Watershed (ERW) of the Upper Colorado River Basin in southwestern Colorado ran from fall 2021 to spring 2023. Two monitoring sites were deployed in the ERW as part of SAIL. The two sites were the Aerosol Observation System (AOS) located on Crested Butte Ski Mountain, and the second ARM Mobile Facility (AMF2), located at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory in Gothic, Colorado. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of aerosols in complex, mountainous terrain, Handix Scientific deployed SAIL-Net, a distributed network of six measurement nodes spanning the domain of the SAIL research area from October 2021 to July 2023. Each node measured aerosol particles between 140 nm and 3.4 μm in diameter using a small portable optical particle spectrometer (POPS; Gao et al. 2016), cloud condensation nuclei (CNN) using a miniature CCN counter (CloudPuck), and ice nucleating particles (INP) using the time-resolved aerosol filter sampler (TRAPS; Creamean et al. 2018). Our approach was similar to other studies that aimed to better characterize and understand aerosols and gas-phase pollutants using networks of lower-cost sensors (Caubel et al. 2019, Kelly et al. 2021, Asher et al. 2022). Such studies have identified neighborhood-level variations in pollutant concentrations (Schneider et al. 2017, Popoola et al. 2018, Caubel et al. 2019). Small-scale variations such as this are poorly represented in models and poorly measured by a single monitoring system (Caubel et al. 2019). Previous work has shown the representation error (the ability of measurements to represent a larger area) increases with complex orography, leading to decreases in model accuracy (Schutgens et al. 2017). The overall goal of SAIL-Net was to improve our understanding of the variability of aerosol in the ERW, thus increasing our knowledge of aerosol-cloud interactions in this region and informing the usefulness of distributed networks of measurements for future studies. We met this goal by answering the following science questions: 1. What is the aerosol temporal variability, and how does aerosol inhomogeneity vary seasonally? Is there significant seasonal variability in sources, or are short-term meteorological conditions the most important determining factor in sources for cloud nuclei? 2. What is the aerosol spatial variability? What are the aerosol characteristics at cloud base, presumably the particles most representative of those acting as cloud nuclei? 3. How should measurement networks be designed to capture aerosol-cloud interactions, and what do they need to measure? Can a single measurement site accurately represent aerosol properties in regions of complex terrain? SAIL-Net consisted of six measurement nodes spread across the ERW near Crested Butte, Colorado. The primary objective in site placement was to select locations that captured the vertical variation in aerosol properties while also spanning the domain of the SAIL campaign. The elevation of the sites ranged from roughly 2750 m along the valley floor of the ERW to approximately 3500 m near the top of Crested Butte Mountain, which is one of the taller peaks in the ERW. The farthest distance between sites was 14 km, while the closest two sites were approximately 1 km apart. Two of the sites were collocated with the ARM SAIL sites; our instruments sat on top of one of the trailers at AOS and another one of our sites was located in a meadow just above AMF2.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation (Rev.1)

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of discovering that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stacks. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. For this analysis, the range of qualified flow rates listed is conservatively based on the average DV through 6 DV for LV-S1, LV-S2, and LV-C2, and 1/3 DV to 3 DV for LV-S3. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the conservative lower and upper qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAW facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the upper qualified stack.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Risk Analysis of a Hydrogen Generation Facility near a Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are considering flexible plant operations to take advantage of excess thermal and electrical energy. One option for NPPs is to pursue hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis as an alternate revenue stream to remain economically viable. The intent of this study is to investigate the risk of a hydrogen production facility in close proximity to an NPP. A 100 MW, 500 MW, and 1,000 MW facility are evaluated herein. Previous analyses have evaluated preliminary designs of a hydrogen production facility in a conservative manner to determine if it is feasible to co-locate the facility within 1 km of an NPP. This analysis specifically evaluates the risk components of different hydrogen production facility designs, including the likelihood of a leak within the system and the associated consequence to critical NPP targets. This analysis shows that although the likelihood of a leak in an HTEF is not negligible, the consequence to critical NPP targets is not expected to lead to a failure given adequate distance from the plant.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2023

Risk Analysis of a 100 MW Hydrogen Generation Facility near a Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear power plants (NPPs) are considering flexible plant operations to take advantage of excess thermal and electrical energy. One option for NPPs is to pursue hydrogen production through high temperature electrolysis as an alternate revenue stream to remain economically viable. The intent of this study is to investigate the risk of a 100 MW hydrogen production facility in close proximity to an NPP. Previous analyses have evaluated preliminary designs of a hydrogen production facility in a conservative manner to determine if it is feasible to co-locate the facility within 1 km of an NPP. This analysis specifically evaluates the risk components of a 100 MW hydrogen production facility design, including the likelihood of a leak within the system and the associated consequence to critical NPP targets. This analysis shows that although the likelihood of a leak in an HTEF is not negligible, the consequence to critical NPP targets is not expected to lead to a failure given adequate distance from the plant.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2020

Key Technical Issues for Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Waste Disposal - 20164

Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste is low-level waste (LLW) that exceeds the Class C concentrations tabulated in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61. Disposal of GTCC waste in the near surface (i.e. upper 30 m of the earth's surface) is prohibited in the United States. Though GTCC waste disposal is generally prohibited, the Commission can approve disposal according to 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) on a case-by-case basis. The waste classification tables, developed in the early 1980's, were based on model projections of dose to an inadvertent intruder in agricultural, construction, and discovery exposure scenarios. The assumptions and parameters used were documented in a series of public reports. Though different disposal facility designs and site conditions were considered, the waste classification tables were based on a disposal facility design located in a specific environment. The tables were based on shallow (i.e., top few meters) trench facility designs and did not consider deeper facilities. To determine the suitability of GTCC waste disposal in the near-surface, site-specific analyses must account for differences between GTCC waste and Class A, B, and C LLW (hereafter, traditional LLW). GTCC waste can have concentrations of radionuclides that are much higher than traditional LLW. Because of these higher concentrations, processes that are typically not significant for traditional LLW may be significant with respect to disposal of GTCC waste. These processes include, but are not limited to, heat generation, criticality, and radiolysis. The form of the waste as well as the barriers to release of the waste (e.g. waste package) could be substantially different than they are for traditional LLW. These barriers need to be considered when assessing the impacts of accidents during receipt and placement and in evaluating long-term performance. Some GTCC radioactivity is either embedded in stainless steel or contained in stainless steel barriers. Stainless steel can have very low corrosion rates under a variety of environmental conditions. Finally, and possibly most importantly, GTCC waste would likely need to be disposed deeper than traditional LLW to reduce the probability of disturbance. The waste classification table values of traditional LLW are based on an inadvertent intruder excavating into the waste and bringing some of the material to the land surface. If waste is deeper than approximately 5 m, the excavation scenario becomes very unlikely. Therefore, other intruder scenarios, such as drilling exposure scenarios, need to be evaluated. This paper summarizes key technical issues for the disposal of GTCC waste. Our previous study shows that certain GTCC waste may be suitable for near surface disposal whereas others may not. This study may support ongoing technical analyses assessing potential disposal of GTCC in a near surface disposal facility. (authors)

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

Lessons Learned from Demolition of Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant - 20507

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC), a Jacobs owned company, is making significant progress demolishing the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP), which has long been known as one of the most hazardous buildings in the DOE Environmental Management Complex (DOE Complex). The facility is located on the Hanford Site and produced plutonium metal during the Cold War. Production was stopped in 1989, the facility was formally shut down in 1996, and material processing was completed in 2004. After approximately 25 years of demolition preparations, open-air demolition of the main portions of the Hazard Category II nuclear facility began in November 2016. To prepare the PFP for demolition, CHPRC employees performed some of the most hazardous work across the DOE Complex. In addition to extensive demolition preparations, including a wide-reaching communication strategy across the Hanford Site, CHPRC implemented robust controls and monitoring during demolition, and when necessary, adjusted demolition practices and sequence to maintain employee safety and project efficiency. Demolition of the main PFP building began in November 2016. The technical complexity, high hazards and radiological concerns have all led to a difficult demolition environment. Following a spread of contamination at the project site beyond the radiological boundaries in December 2017, work was halted and a recovery plan was generated to allow the demolition work to continue. After the implementation of additional controls and concurrence from regulatory agencies and DOE, the demolition was ready to resume work and reinitiated in August 2018. There are a number of lessons learned from the demolition activities and recovery plan process. This paper allows CHPRC and DoE's Richland Operations Office (RL) to share lessons learned and progress to date with other challenging and hazardous projects across the DOE Complex. Understanding the risk acceptance level is critical to execution of any open-air demolition project and is unique to each facility. Four key lessons learned from this project include: 1) plan execution issues, 2) stakeholder communication issues, 3) watching for summit fever and 4) minimizing exposed contaminated surfaces during demolition. (authors)

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

Opportunities for Using the Industrial Assessment Center Database for Industrial Water Use Analysis

The manufacturing sector accounted for approximately 5–6% of total U.S. water use in 2015. Of that amount, 75–80% is self supplied withdrawal from surface-water and groundwater sources and the remainder is from public water supplies. Although manufacturing facilities commonly locate in water-scarce areas, water scarcity still poses a great risk to the manufacturing sector. Reliable water is necessary for any facility that relies on it for process and comfort cooling, cleaning, employee use, and steam generation. One of these barriers to water efficiency is the lack of reliable data on overall U.S. industrial water use—how it is used and the quantities required for each sector. If a facility cannot be easily compared with a facility of similar size and sector, knowing if it is effectively using water conservation best practices is difficult. One potential source of industrial water use data is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)–sponsored Industrial Assessment Centers (IACs). IACs are university-based organizations that provide free audits to small- and medium-sized manufacturing facilities to identify productivity improvement and waste and energy reduction opportunities. The IACs also maintain a database of all the audits conducted, which currently holds more than 19,267 assessments and 145,000 recommendations (as of July 24, 2020). This database also contains energy utility (electricity, natural gas, and other fuels) and water utility data, making it a potential data source for industrial water use. This report attempts to create regression models to predict a small- or medium-sized industrial facility’s annual water use or cost based on its industrial subsector and several possible relevant variables. Using data collected by IAC assessments, models for several industrial subsectors were generated via stepwise regression techniques to determine which variables (annual sales, number of employees, facility/plant area, annual production hours, and a water stress metric) are relevant.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Section 3 Reporting: Preserve America

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is a multidisciplinary laboratory with seven Nobel Prize-winning discoveries, 37 R&D 100 Awards, and countless advances in science and technology. For over 75 years, the Laboratory has played a leading role in the Department of Energy (DOE) Science and Technology mission and continues to contribute to the DOE’s missions in energy resources, environmental quality, and national security. The Laboratory is operated and managed by Brookhaven Science Associates (BSA), which was founded by the Research Foundation for the State University of New York on behalf of Stony Brook University, and Battelle, a non-profit applied science and technology organization. BNL is committed to longstanding partnerships with researchers, academic institutions, industry, students, teachers, and the surrounding community. BNL is located near the center of Suffolk County on Long Island, New York within Brookhaven Township, about 60 miles east of New York City. Most of BNL’s principal facilities are located near the center of the 5,265-acre (8.23 square mile) site (Figure 1). The developed area encompasses approximately 1,820 acres, consisting of: ▪ 500 acres originally developed by the Army (as part of WW II Camp Upton) and still used for offices and other operational buildings. ▪ 200 acres occupied by large, specialized research facilities. ▪ 520 acres occupied by outlying facilities, such as the Sewage Treatment Plant, research agricultural fields, housing facilities, and fire breaks. ▪ 400 acres of roads, parking lots, and connecting areas. ▪ 200 acres developed for the Long Island Solar Farm. The balance of the site, approximately 3,400 acres, is largely wooded and represents a native pine barrens ecosystem. In November 2000, DOE set aside 530 acres of undeveloped land at BNL as the Upton Ecological and Research Reserve. The Upton Reserve preserves this portion of the pine barrens ecosystem and provides an area for ecological research and education activities.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

When Every Drum is a Win - Tackling a Thirty-Five Thousand Drum Legacy - 20064

Cameco Corporation's (Cameco) Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF) was previously owned by the federal Crown Corporation, Eldorado Nuclear, which held a significant inventory of legacy waste material at the time Cameco was formed in 1988. As a result, Cameco was granted an allocation of 150,000 cubic metres of space in the Long-Term Waste Management Facility (LTWMF) located in the Municipality of Port Hope (MPH), which opened to the receipt of Cameco material in June 2018. Cameco is currently undertaking a major site cleanup and renewal of its Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF) which is known as the Vision in Motion (VIM) project. Over its operating history, Eldorado accumulated an inventory of over 35,000 drums of accumulated waste that was primarily stored at two offside warehouse locations. In 2017 and 2018, the project focused on repackaging two well characterized legacy wastes (magnesium fluoride slag and depleted uranium titanium oxide) from one of the two offsite locations. At the conclusion of this work, approximately 15,000 drums of these wastes had been repackaged and disposed of at the LTWMF. There remained approximately 1000 drums from this location that either could not be repackaged safely or were different waste types and required further verification and/or processing. The buildings at this location were scheduled for demolition in early 2019, which triggered the development of a process for triaging legacy drums in August 2018, which allowed for preparation and shipment of approximately half of these drums to the LTWMF by March 2019, with the remainder moved to the second offsite warehouse location in February 2019 for further characterization which is ongoing. This paper will discuss key lessons learned as the drummed legacy waste disposal inventory has been reduced to approximately half of the initial inventory. This will include the development of an alternate packaging process; prioritization of characterization activities and selection of techniques where minimal inventory information is available; determination of next step(s) for each drum as it is assessed; key safety considerations; and how to make inroads into an overwhelming task while under public and regulatory scrutiny. In a relatively short period of time, significant progress has been made to organize and gather information about the legacy waste, update the inventory records and determine the most appropriate pathways (i.e. LTWMF disposal, disposal at another appropriate facility, site storage until future processing and/or disposal). Since 2017 the volume of the decades-old legacy waste inventory has decreased significantly. With the majority of the known materials safely disposed of at the LTWMF, every drum removed from the endless rows of 20,000 pyramidally-stacked waste drums with limited history that is safely characterized, prepared and shipped is considered a win. (authors)

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

Biorefinery siting and sizing to achieve the US Billion‐Ton Bioeconomy vision: A case study using a gasification–Fischer–Tropsch process

Achieving a secure, abundant, and affordable energy future requires a robust and adaptable energy strategy, with bioenergy playing a pivotal role. Biomass-based energy presents a promising pathway to use domestic resources while fostering economic opportunities in rural areas. Despite the potential to source more than 1 billion dry short tons of biomass annually in the US, significant infrastructure and economic barriers hinder full utilization for energy production. This study used the Biofuel Infrastructure, Logistics, and Transportation (BILT) model to assess biorefinery siting and scale and determine the number and size of facilities required to maximize use of the US biomass potential. A spatially agnostic approach first assessed the effects of facility capacity and transportation constraints on biomass use. Then, a spatially explicit analysis integrated county-level biomass availability from the US Department of Energy's 2023 Billion-Ton Report and technoeconomic assessments to evaluate different biorefinery deployment scenarios. The results indicate that an optimized mix of facility sizes is essential to leverage biomass resources fully across varying regional production densities to maximize use of the US biomass potential. Larger biorefineries or co-located smaller facilities significantly enhance biomass use while reducing costs through economies of scale. These findings underscore the importance of strategically balancing facility capacity and spatial distribution to optimize the bioenergy supply chain. In conclusion, this study provides critical insights for advancing the US bioenergy economy by aligning biorefinery deployment with biomass resource availability and economic viability.

BILT Model↗
DOE OSTI2021

Data Science and Computation for Rapid and Dynamic Compression Experiment Workflows at Experimental Facilities, September 8-11, 2020. Workshop Report

The application of high pressure to materials has enabled discoveries in scientific fields such as planetary science, materials science, and materials synthesis. Recent advances in X-ray user light sources and other facilities, co-location and integration of user facilities with high-pressure drivers, availability of high-performance computing (HPC) platforms, and the development of new data science techniques have created opportunities for, and challenges in, advancing data analytics for rapid and dynamic compression experiments. To address these challenges, harness the emerging technology now available, and expedite scientific discovery, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) hosted a virtual workshop entitled “Data Science and Computation for Rapid and Dynamic Compression Workflows at Experimental Facilities” from September 8 to 11, 2020. The workshop included 95 registered scientists and analytics experts from 15 universities, 9 United States (US) national laboratories, 5 US and European X-ray light sources, neutron sources such as the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE), other big science facilities such as the National Ignition Facility (NIF), and an industry representative. The workshop included 31 invited talks and 4 lightning talks by students and postdocs.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Oak Ridge Subcritical Assembly Final Design and Current Progress [Slides]

This presentation shows how ORSA design has moved from conceptual to implementable. Additionally, that the ORSA hands-on experiments will remain subcritical under normal and credible abnormal conditions it is fully assembled k eff = 0.95024 ± 0.0003 and USL = 0.9763. This presentation finds locations will have minimal security and safety basis impact. Available options can meet security criteria for ORSA material and Options will have less mass than the ANS-8.1 single parameter limit for 235 U either by segregation or functioning as its own facility. Further, Locations are feasible for a diversity of students and the implementation of ORSA will improve upon NCSP T&E’s vision to remain adaptable and responsive.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Current Progress of the Final Design of a Subcritical Assembly at Oak Ridge National Laboratory [Slides]

This presentation shows how ORSA design has moved from conceptual to implementable. Additionally, that the ORSA hands-on experiments will remain subcritical under normal and credible abnormal conditions it is fully assembled k eff = 0.95024 ± 0.0003 and USL = 0.9763. This presentation finds locations will have minimal security and safety basis impact. Available options can meet security criteria for ORSA material and Options will have less mass than the ANS-8.1 single parameter limit for 235 U either by segregation or functioning as its own facility. Further, Locations are feasible for a diversity of students and the implementation of ORSA will improve upon NCSP T&E’s vision to remain adaptable and responsive.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Optimizing the location and configuration of disaster resilience hubs under transportation and electric power network failures

Natural disasters often result in failures of transportation network components and blackouts that imperil the wellbeing of vulnerable populations. In response to these events, resilience hubs have been proposed as a pre-disaster planning strategy to improve access to critical services. This paper introduces an optimization-based approach to locate and configure electric power-generating resilience hubs considering the possibility of failures in transportation and electric power systems. The model's objective is to identify hub locations and configurations that maximize transportation accessibility to the hubs and maximize the satisfaction of basic energy needs through hub-generated electric power. Besides a budget constraint, the model accounts for limits on the levels of hub energy generation vis-à-vis community energy demands, and on the transportation network distance of communities to hubs. Three heuristics are presented for the proposed planning problem. The first heuristic is a genetic algorithm (GA) with problem-specific solution generation procedures. The other two heuristics implement greedy search techniques. Numerical experiments were conducted, using data from rural Puerto Rico, to illustrate the application of the proposed model and heuristics, and examine their performance. In the numerical experiments, the GA heuristic found better solutions than the greedy heuristics. Additionally, design solutions consisting of spatially dispersed hubs with low energy generation capacity were better than solutions with spatially concentrated high-capacity hubs. Lastly, across a wide range of hub demand scenarios, only a small number of candidate hub locations consistently ranked among the best locations for establishing a hub.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗