Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Environmental Protection”

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 1,279 records · Page 71
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Local, Regional, and Global Trade-Offs of Hydropower Relicensing Decisions An Analysis of Electric Generation, Revenue, Electricity Market, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Local Environmental Impacts

Large hydropower systems incur various impacts on society and the environment, but the manner in which these systems are operated can determine the severity of these impacts. The federal hydropower relicensing process – which occurs only once every 30-50 years – examines a number of potential impacts, but disregards others. This paper identifies some of the local, regional, and global trade-offs that should be examined more explicitly in relicensing proceedings. These include higher-resolution analyses of impacts on generation and revenue (including ancillary services) and the potential greenhouse gas impacts of different hydropower operating regimes. Any reduction of low-carbon generation may result in global environmental and social harms if it is replaced by fossil fuel generation. Although rarely quantified in the hydropower relicensing process, this is an important value in understanding the range of costs and benefits of different operating proposals. Using a case study of the Yuba River Development Project, this study finds that an environmentally protective operating regime reduces electric generation by 6.1% but increases ancillary services provision by 1.9% on average. The reduced hydropower generation is replaced by natural gas generation, resulting in an increase in CO2 emissions with a global social cost of about $1 million annually.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Nuclear Energy Model Intercomparison Project

This document summarizes the current status and future plans of the Nuclear Model Intercomparison Project. The objectives of this project are to understand how issues central to nuclear energy are modeled in long-term capacity expansion models, to investigate how model structures and input assumptions impact projections for nuclear’s role, to refine model representations of nuclear energy, and to communicate findings to the research community and decision-makers. High-level goals are discussed for each of the four participating model groups: the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). This document summarizes scenarios and assumptions for the model comparison, outcomes from the first workshop, and next steps.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Promoting Domestic and International Consensus - Program Area 1: Carbon Capture & Storage & Clean Energy Systems

This is the Final Report for the U.S. Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement DE-FE-0024159, Promoting Domestic and International Consensus on Fossil Energy Technologies: Carbon Capture and Storage and Clean Energy Systems carried out by the United States Energy Association. It is a compendium of each quarterly report submitted over the 7-year period of the agreement accounting for all accomplishments, including major activities, significant results, major findings or conclusions, key outcomes or other achievements. Changes in approach or aims, and reasons for those changes, are included as well as any problems or delays and actions taken and planned to resolve them. It also summarizes budget statuses and any changes in key personnel throughout the life of the agreement. Originally planned for 5 years, the agreement was extended twice through back-to-back no-cost extensions, one to enable full completion of tasks critical to the program’s success and the other due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The goals of the program were to provide increased knowledge regarding Carbon, Capture, and Storage (CCS) and Clean Energy Systems (CES) to Industry and Government decision makers, technology developers, educators, policymakers, environmental and other stakeholders, and the public by sharing research, technologies, and best practices with domestic and international partners. Increasing such knowledge was key to the other goals of the program of building of a broad consensus among domestic and international decision makers, stakeholders, and the public to take action to support and implement CCS and CES technologies and systems to ensure clean, secure, and affordable energy while enhancing environmental protection. The program accomplished these goals through a series of activities including hosting of conferences and workshops, in-person briefings, virtual webinars, reports and white papers, and keeping stakeholders informed of industry happenings through email distribution lists. It is the belief of the authors of this report, that these activities can be considered to have been successful in their goals.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

Testing Rod Seal Leakage of a 700 HP Reciprocating Compressor

Methane emissions from reciprocating compressors in the U.S. natural gas industry account for over 72.4 Bcf per year according to a 2006 statement by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methane also has a global warming potential 50 times greater than carbon monoxide. Reciprocating compressors are the machinery type with the highest contribution to methane emissions at natural gas transmissions stations. The largest contributing factor comes from the sealing components in the packing components around the piston rod. SwRI, therefore, designed and setup a test loop to perform baseline packing leakage measurements on a four stage 700 HP JGT/4 compressor. The goal was to improve upon current packing leakage models and to compare new seals vs. used seals. The test loop design is described including the limits of operation. The Data Acquisition System (DAQ), including data measurements, is also fully described. The project shows the results of the commissioning process that verified the operation of all the components. Once the loop was commissioned, SwRI performed baseline packing leakage for multiple pressure ratios on each of the four stages of the compressor. The data was collected to develop an analytical model of the packing leakage. Finally, similar testing was performed after replacing the typical rod seal packing with used packing. The used packing leakage was compared to the baseline packing leakage.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Long-term trends in connected thermostat performance

Internet-connected thermostats (CTs) control heating and cooling systems in about 30% of North American homes, and capture half of annual thermostat sales. In 2017 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created a program to certify the performance of ENERGY STAR® Connected Thermostats. To demonstrate compliance with energy-saving criteria, thermostat vendors must submit performance summaries for a representative sample of up to 1250 homes. Vendors must then re-submit results from a new, representative sample every six months in order to maintain their ENERGY STAR certification. This procedure has created a unique record of each thermostat’s long-term performance in response to changes in weather, customer demographics, building stock, and algorithms. Our analysis covers submissions from 13 different vendors, who submitted data up to 7 times over four years. We found that these semi-annual samples generated relatively stable trends for comfort temperatures and Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) runtimes over the study period. However, some vendors achieved consistently more energy-conserving comfort temperatures and shorter HVAC runtimes than others. The most recent submission runtimes averaged 700 hours for heating and 1,300 hours for cooling, but some vendors achieved runtimes as much as 17% below the mean. This implies lower energy consumption is due in large part to more successful algorithms and control strategies used by those vendors.

Meier, Alan↗
DOE OSTI2022

Waste Reduction Network Waste Glossary

This document contains relevant industry definitions to support partners in the Better Buildings, Better Plants Waste Reduction Network. Definitions were compiled using the CalRecycle Glossary, SWANA’s Waste Glossary, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and Metro Oregon. Some terms contain multiple complementary definitions.

Better Buildings, waste glossary, compost, waste d↗
DOE OSTI2022

Preprocessing of municipal solid waste towards thermal insulating material

Municipal solid waste (MSW) is one of the significant challenges in today’s world. A continuous surge in population, increasing living standards, and rapid urbanization are generating an enormous quantity of MSW. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that the total generation of MSW in the United States in 2018 was 292.4 million tons. Improper management of this MSW often leads to the release of greenhouse gases, emission of particulate matters, and formation of dioxins, which all ultimately contributes to climate change. Recycling these wastes via landfills with gas recovery and/or energy and material production via thermal and chemical conversions could be viable options to manage these challenges. Depending on the inherent chemical and structural properties of unrecycled wastes, the carbon structures can be tailored for processing and reuse in manufacturing of structural composites, building materials such as insulation, carbon dense reactant materials such as activated carbon, and so on. According to the EPA’s estimation, MSW in the United States is approximately 23% paper and paperboard, 12% plastics, 6% wood and 6% is textiles. Thus, this research focused on the feasibility of using the MSW as insulation material for the construction sector. The goal of this work was to determine the range of particle sizes, consolidation ratios, and component blends that can achieve insulation R-values within at least 70% that of traditional blown cellulose fiber. To achieve this goal, we designed the testing matrix based on five different component blends, three different particle sizes, and three different compaction level. An American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method (C-739) was used to measure the R-value of the insulation material. Results showed that, adding more paper component in addition to smaller particle size and loose compaction made the insulation similar to the traditional blown cellulose fiber insulation as the R-value was within a range of 2.5-3.0 per inch.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

B^dragon2002F

Report will be submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

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

Technical Assistance 101 - How Can the Joint Office Support You?

The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (Joint Office), in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), provides free technical assistance on the planning, deployment, operation, and maintenance of a national network of electric vehicle chargers, zero-emission fueling infrastructure, and zero-emission transit and school buses. This help sheet shares how technical assistance can support stakeholders.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗
DOE OSTI2017

Re-evaluation of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Passive Institutional Controls Program - Status - 17116

The United States government set forth in 40CFR194.43 requirements for 'Passive Institutional Controls' for nuclear waste repositories. This regulation stated compliance applications for a repository 'shall include detailed descriptions of the measures that will be employed to preserve knowledge about the location, design and contents of the disposal system.' In the early 1990's the U.S. Department of Energy developed and proposed in the Compliance Certification Application of 1996 a robust and complex technical and engineering Passive Institutional Controls Program including such things as records management, large surface markers, salt berms, buried and above-ground information rooms and small subsurface markers/plaques. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Passive Institutional Control program meets the regulatory requirements and is certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Presently this program is being re-evaluated in light of the Nuclear Energy Agency's, Records Knowledge and Memory initiative, shrinking government budgets, and the ethical/moral considerations of risks versus expenditures. This paper will discuss progress made to date in re-evaluating the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Passive Institutional Controls program and expected plans for the future. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Data Quality Objectives for Direct LAW Feed Acceptance and Qualification - 17122

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility has been designed to operate under two scenarios. In the primary operating scenario, the Pretreatment Facility configuration, waste is first processed through the WTP Pretreatment Facility. Then the low-activity liquid is transferred to the WTP LAW Facility for vitrification. Alternately, under a direct feed operating scenario, known as Direct Feed LAW (DFLAW), the supernatant portion of the tank waste, referred to as the LAW feed, is treated in a Low-Activity Waste Pretreatment System (LAWPS) prior to transfer of treated feed to LAW Facility. The DFLAW scenario is a strategy to begin treating Hanford tank wastes as soon as 2022. A program has been established as part of One System to integrate and align the waste feed acceptance and qualification requirements for processing in the LAWPS and the LAW facility. One key activity of the program is the development of integrated data quality objectives (DQO) using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidance for the DQO process. [1] The integrated approach focused on one sampling event that will provide sufficient and necessary data to meet both LAWPS and LAW Facility criteria. Existing data and historical information were taken into account to develop sampling and data collection requirements necessary to meet waste acceptance criteria and processing requirements for both LAWPS and LAW Facility. Using a conceptual model for the sampling and decision process, the seven steps of the DQO process were completed. This paper discusses the details of the integrated DQO process. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Peer Review Lessons Learned - DOE and Regulator Perspectives - 17140

The DOE NNSA Nevada Field Office (NFO) Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity requires an external peer review to complete an extensive stage of site characterization and groundwater flow and contaminant transport model(s) development. The external peer review evaluates whether assumptions, methods, and conclusions derived from model(s) outputs are based on sound scientific principles and examines the scientific appropriateness of the model(s) outputs for informing the regulatory decision. The regulatory decision which is made by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) is whether the model is acceptable to advance to the next UGTA strategy stage. Depending on the specific corrective action unit, the next stage is a Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan or Closure Stage. Three external peer reviews have taken place to date for the UGTA Activity. The first one resulted in a second phase of characterization and model development. The second external peer review resulted in advancement to the next UGTA strategy stage. While advancement to the next strategy stage was recommended by the third external peer review, a series of supplemental data collection and analyses and model simulation activities to address external peer review comments, including drilling three new wells and sampling multiple wells, occurred before moving into the next UGTA strategy stage. Twelve participants representing different aspects of the peer reviews (NDEP, NNSA/NFO, science advisors, presenters, and external peer reviewers) were interviewed to generate a combined lessons learned. Questions were asked regarding their experience with the process including panel selection, focused questions, presentations, interactions between UGTA Activity participants and reviewers, and results. The interview results were combined with the outcome of a published lessons learned report developed following the first external peer review. In general, those interviewed believed that all three external peer reviews were satisfactory and met the goals of the FFACO process. The following seven lessons learned were identified: (1) Ensure the panel is not biased and has a balance of technical and regulatory background; (2) Clearly state the review objective(s) at the start of the review; (3) Ask focused questions that support the peer review objective(s) but that do not ask the specific regulatory question; (4) Establish a peer review panel earlier in the strategy process; (5) Establish one point of contact for the entire review and conduct periodic meetings with the peer review panel to ensure focus remains on the review objective(s) and to ensure that pertinent information is provided; (6) Ensure that presentations are well coordinated, anomalous data or analysis results are addressed, and are focused on supporting the peer review objective(s); and (7) Carefully consider the panel's recommendations prior to embarking on a particular path forward. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Stakeholder Involvement in the Revegetation of the 92-Acre Area - 17152

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) works closely with stakeholders that have an interest in the revegetation of a closed landfill on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Located at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex on the NNSS, the 92-Acre Area was operational from 1961 to 2010. In 2009, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and NNSA/NFO agreed on a closure path consisting of a vegetative cover. Closure activities were initially completed in 2012. Although revegetation was initially promising, subsequent monitoring revealed that a viable plant community had not been established. Subsequently, sections of the site were chosen as test plot locations to determine the best path forward. Despite various seeding methods, mulching techniques, and irrigation frequencies, the test plots failed to produce viable plant communities in 2013 and 2014. NNSA/NFO had been in communication with one stakeholder, NDEP, during the revegetation process. NDEP agreed that after three failed revegetation attempts, a change in strategy was necessary. The Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO), a coalition of tribal members representing seventeen culturally affiliated tribes and one organization, agreed to provide guidance using traditional ecological knowledge for re-vegetating the 92-Acre Area. A Tribal Revegetation Committee (TRC) was formed and tasked with developing guidance from a unique tribal perspective. After visiting the 92-Acre Area and receiving background information, the TRC held several meetings and deliberated on how to address the revegetation challenges. The TRC submitted recommendations to NNSA/NFO identifying approaches that incorporate tribal perspectives in re-vegetating the site. The Nevada Site-Specific Advisory Board (NSSAB), which is made up of community members who represent Nevada stakeholders, was also asked for input regarding the 92-Acre Area. After a public meeting in May 2016, the NSSAB submitted recommendations, which included a suggestion to consider input from the CGTO. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

The Future of EPA's Waste Estimation Support Tool - 17227

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Waste Estimation Support Tool (WEST) is a GIS-based decision support tool for estimating the characteristics, amount, and residual radioactivity of waste generated from remediation and cleanup activities after a radiological incident, including those involving radiological dispersal devices, improvised nuclear devices, and nuclear power plants. WEST has been released to the public and has been used in numerous national level exercises and planning scenarios; however, it continues to be improved and refined to add additional functionality and performance. Since its inception, WEST has undergone a myriad of updates, routinely ensuring compatibility with ESRI's ArcGIS and FEMA's Hazus, a tool for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, wind, and flood events. Furthermore, recent enhancements have added reporting and mapping features and multi-state support. Over time, this progress has strained WEST's Microsoft{sup C} Excel based platform. The inherent limitations of Excel have limited the capacity of WEST and narrowed the scope of potential enhancements. Recent collaborative efforts between the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Science and Technology Directorate (S and T) and EPA will see the introduction of a new software platform for easing memory limitations and new and innovative features for improving the accuracy of waste estimates. The planned enhancements include: 1) Systems approach: measure or predict the outcome of decisions associated with disaster response (e.g., decontamination efficacy vs. waste) and to a greater extent, the overall resource demand (e.g., cost, time, etc.); 2) Custom infrastructure data and international support: accommodate non-US building information where available and also add new data and information on recently used decontamination technologies as applied in a real-world incident; 3) Additional waste factors: addition of waste factors that are unique to wide area scenarios such as vehicles and trees as they will likely contribute in a significant manner to the overall waste stream;4) Site analysis and logistics: apply spatial information and analysis technologies to locate and prioritize potential waste staging or storage sites; and use GIS-based logistics planning to better organize, route, and estimate the cost, time, and logistical requirements (i.e., resource demand) associated with transporting large volumes of waste from a disaster-stricken area to waste staging or storage sites; 5) Decontamination technologies: introduce new decontamination technologies, better understand the feasibility and efficacy of new and preexisting decontamination technologies when applied to a wide area incident, and use historical incidents to ground truth waste results; and 6) Resource demand: ability to estimate resource demand information associated with decontamination technologies, waste staging and storage, and logistical information for transporting waste. This paper will describe the next version of WEST (WEST 4.0), and how the aforementioned enhancements will contribute to improving the planning and response capabilities of the tool. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Exposure Assumptions Underlying Cleanups to Industrial Versus Unrestricted Uses: Comparison of State and Federal Approaches - 17228

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and various states have designated a variety of cleanup levels ranging from restricted (too much residual contamination to allow any use) to unrestricted or residential. Although there are many potential exposure scenarios, the States of Washington and New Jersey identify only two levels for cleanup of chemical contaminants in soil: 'unrestricted' and 'industrial' (Washington) and 'residential' vs 'non-residential' (New Jersey). Other agencies such as EPA and DOE recognize several levels of recreational use, between unrestricted and industrial, and likewise there are several levels of residential use as well. Cleanup criteria may allow or preclude the use of ground water for drinking, swimming pools, gardens, or lawns. Tribal unrestricted scenarios include the use of water (probably surface water in most scenarios) for sweat lodges, and have calculated high level exposure pathways for both dermal and inhalation pathways as well as ingestion. For residential scenarios, inadvertent ingestion of soil, drinking of ground water, and consumption of local foods represent the highest exposure pathways. Intermediate, recreational pathways may be non-consumptive (hiking, bird watching, photography) or consumptive (hunting, fishing, harvesting plants and medicines), the latter entailing much higher potential exposures. For each land-use there is a corresponding exposure scenario, with different assumptions about the maximally exposed individual, their age, and the amounts of air, water, soil, and foods they consume. For each exposure pathway one can compute the ratio between the exposure assumptions for any two scenarios. The product of the ratios comprises a Vulnerability Index. The index is higher for children than adults. For Washington this Index is reflected in the 'industrial' vs 'unrestricted' soil cleanup levels, which are 43.7 times lower for 'unrestricted'. This paper explores the similarities and differences in the exposure scenarios and vulnerability of the maximally exposed individuals and the consequences of a mismatch between current cleanup levels and possible future land uses. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Remediation of 130 mSv/hr. Soil Contamination Under a Hot Cell - 17301

Department of Energy (DOE) contractor CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CH2M) is currently engineering a system to safely remove and dispose of highly contaminated soil underneath Building 324 located adjacent to the Columbia River on the Hanford Site in Washington State. Cleaning up the waste site will allow for the eventual demolition of the building, which is a top priority for DOE and CH2M due to the proximity of the Columbia River and City of Richland. Building 324 at Hanford was originally constructed in 1966 and was operated for a number of years serving various missions. One of the missions involved development of treatment processes for liquid high activity waste. As of result of one particular mission, liquid high activity waste was spilled in one of the building's hot cells (known as 'B' Cell) and the liquid leaked from a breach in a sump and through construction joints in the hot cell floor and into the soil. Sampling efforts using borehole technology revealed significant under-building contamination with dose rates measuring has high as 130 mSv/hr (13,000 R/hr.). The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) between the Washington State, Department of Ecology (Ecology), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the DOE has established a 2021 milestone for demolition and removal of the Building 324. Before building demolition can be undertaken, the highly contaminated soil must be removed from beneath the hot cell while the hot cell structure remains in place to provide shielding and containment during the soil remediation. CH2M will fabricate and install remotely operated equipment that will remove debris and grout in the cell, the floor of the hot cell, and the contaminated soil beneath the hot cell and package that soil for disposal. To ensure that the structure remains intact and does not shift during soil removal, support for the building structure must also be constructed as a prerequisite for the planned work. CH2M will use a full-scale mock-up of the Building 324 B Cell and airlock area to assist in the testing of the remotely operated equipment and the training of the soil removal team in a contamination-free environment to ensure efficient and safe performance of the challenging work of the project. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Superfund Update: Revisions to Risk and Dose Assessment Tools - 17302

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund remedial program is finishing up a significant number of revisions to its guidance for the risk assessment process at radioactively contaminated Superfund sites. The six Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) and Dose Compliance Concentration (DCC) internet based calculators for risk and dose assessment at Superfund sites are being revised to reflect better science, revisions to existing exposure scenarios and new scenarios, and changes to match up more closely with the EPA chemical regional screening level calculator. A comprehensive set of revisions to the PRG calculator was finished in November 2014. Additional revisions to the other 5 calculators were made in. A set of further revisions are expected to be finalized prior to December 2016 and will be discussed in this abstract. There are several additional revisions that may be finished prior to WM 2017 and will be presented if finished or discussed in more general terms if still underway. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗