Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CONSULTANTS”

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 163 records · Page 9

Radiation-Hardened, High-Speed Parallel VCSEL Links for High-Energy Physics

Vega Wave Systems, Inc. has been awarded a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase II proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy entitled “Radiation-Hardened, High-Speed Parallel VCSEL Links For High-Energy Physics.” The technology proposed under this program is a significant advance (up to 4x) in data rate over current optical link technologies under development. Fermilab supports the technology developed under this proposal as a radiation-hardened, cost-effective solution for optical links for the high-speed data communications in High-Energy Physics and agrees to provide consulting and test engineering in support of this program. Fermilab staff will provide consulting services along with high speed testing of modules before and after radiation testing.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

Summary of LANL FY19 Technical Interface Coordination with SHINE

In FY19, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) provided technical support for SHINE emergent needs and technical interface coordination including coordination of SHINE CFD and thermal hydraulics conference calls, Mo-99 meetings and reviews, national laboratory conference calls, and program management activities such as reporting and tracking requirements for current FY19 activities. LANL has also provided general technology consultation support for emerging issues. LANL has participated in the bi-weekly conference calls with SHINE and other national laboratories regarding LANL’s current activities. Activities discussed include FY18 carryover items including the ANSYS Fluent-Nek5000 comparison study (for assessment of Nek5000 for coupled calculations), Supo 3-D CFD model geometry validation, and releasing CFD-MCNP coupled codes for the generic solution vessel simulations. Also, additional mid-year funded activities discussed during these conference calls include the ANL bubble experiment #2 collaboration. SHINE had a general technology consultation request in FY19. SHINE inquired about LANL’s capability to measure enrichment percentage of uranium samples, however, additional information is needed to continue. The meeting minutes for these activities are shown in Appendix A. LANL has also been providing monthly updates on the laboratory SharePoint site (managed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) regarding current FY19 activities. Monthly updates include current activity milestone and deliverable status, completion date updates and variances if applicable, and actual cost at the task dependent activity level. LANL attended several Mo-99 meetings and reviews in FY19. LANL attended the FY19 Mo-99 Laboratory Mid-Year Program and Financial Review at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) on March 20-21, 2019, as well as the FY19 Mo-99 Program Meeting and Mid-Year Financial Review in Chicago, IL on April 29-30, 2019. LANL also attended the FY20 Laboratory Work Package Planning Meeting at ANL on June 4-6, 2019.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

Establishing a Technical Assistance Network to Build Capacity in Southwest Alaska (Southwest Alaska Energy Network - Final Report)

The Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference (SWAMC) is a non-profit regional membership economic development organization that represents the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands, Bristol Bay, and Kodiak regions of southwest Alaska. SWAMC applied for the DOE-OIE Establishment of an Inter-Tribal Technical Assistance Energy Providers Network grant FOA to work with our partners to provide energy planning and project development technical assistance. The project team was made up of SWAMC, three regional organizations, a management consulting firm, and a panel of technical consultants. SWAMC sub-contracted with the three Alaska Native regional non-profit organizations – Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA), Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), and Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) – to fund full or partial Regional Energy Coordinator (REC) positions. The project period ran from September 2016 to March 2020. The project goal was to help southwest Alaska regional tribal partners and communities to develop efficient and financially sustainable structures for identifying and developing energy projects that enhance community resiliency and energy sustainability. This project established energy coordinators and management structures in the Aleutian, Bristol Bay, and Kodiak regions to expand technical assistance capacity of regional residents; demonstrate this capacity by advancing energy efficiency, heat, and power supply projects; and secure long-term funding commitments to establish a sustained technical assistance structure. The project team expanded technical assistance capacity of energy coordinators and regional stakeholders in several ways: by providing funding for the SWAMC project manager to attend three Office of Indian Energy trainings; for energy coordinators to attend numerous energy conferences; for utility clerks from several villages to receive one-on-one reporting training on Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization electric subsidy program; and for the Kodiak REC to complete the Arctic Remote Energy Networks Academy and NREL’s Executive Energy Leadership Academy. The energy coordinators demonstrated and shared their increased capacity by hosting several public events: SWAMC hosted two full-day energy workshops in February 2017 and 2018; the Kodiak REC hosted seven Energy Committee meetings for Kodiak stakeholders and gave several presentations at other events; and SWAMC and BBNA organized a Bristol Bay Regional Energy Visioning Session in May 2019. The project team created platforms to both share and request information to involve energy stakeholders in this project, including an energy website, a Facebook group, a periodic newsletter, surveys, mass emails, and paper mailers. An increase in regional capacity was demonstrated through several grant awards, including a $1.2 million USDA grant for Akhiok for an electric distribution infrastructure replacement; an AHFC Kickstarter grant for Aleknagik to audit 2 Tribal and 3 City buildings; and installation of an Air Source Heat Pump demonstration project in Atka. Two communities and one region – Ouzinkie (May 2017), Ugashik (July 2017), and the Bristol Bay region (May 2019) – utilized DOE’s technical assistance services to hold Strategic Energy Planning sessions with NREL and DOE facilitation assistance. And in early 2018, SWAMC established a parallel program, funded through a USDA Energy Audit and Renewable Energy Development grant to provide subsidized energy audits for small businesses in the region. SWAMC and partners have now completed energy audits of over 60 businesses (buildings and fishing vessels) and are currently operating a third round of the USDA program. Fifteen of those business owners have now received additional grant funding to cover 25% of the cost of the energy efficiency upgrades identified in the audit. This technical assistance structure will be sustained beyond DOE grant funding in several forms. As a sign of increased grant writing and project management capacity, the Kodiak Regional Energy Coordinator applied for and received a USDA Community Facilities Technical Assistance and Training grant to continue work begun under this program. Energy coordination tasks have been folded into existing economic development positions at SWAMC and at BBNA, ensuring long-term outreach and support in the region.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Summary of Preliminary Concepts for a Port of Alaska Resilient Microgrid

The Port of Alaska in Anchorage enables the economic vitality of the Municipality of Anchorage and State of Alaska. It also provides significant support to defense activities across Alaska, especially to the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) that is immediately adjacent to the Port. For this reason, stakeholders are interested in the resilience of the Ports operations. This report documents a preliminary feasibility analysis for developing an energy system that increases electric supply resilience for the Port and for a specific location inside JBER. The project concept emerged from prior work led by the Municipality of Anchorage and consultation with Port stakeholders. The project consists of a microgrid with PV, storage and diesel generation, capable of supplying electricity to loads at the Port a specific JBER location during utility outages, while also delivering economic value during blue-sky conditions. The study aims to estimate the size, configuration and concept of operations based on existing infrastructure and limited demand data. It also explores potential project benefits and challenges. The report goal is to inform further stakeholder consultation and next steps.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Innovations in Building Energy Modeling: Research and Development Opportunities for Emerging Technologies

Building energy modeling (BEM) is a multipurpose tool for building energy efficiency (EE). The U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Office (BTO) seeks to expand the use and effectiveness of BEM in the design and operation of commercial and residential buildings with the goal of achieving lasting reductions in total and peak energy use. This report identifies gaps and outlines recommended initiatives to achieve this goal, based on a combination of technical analysis and stakeholder input. In addition to BTO, this report can benefit BEM professionals (architects, mechanical engineers, energy consultants, building auditors, equipment manufacturers, and BEM software vendors) and BEM clients (building owners and operators, EE program administrators, EE service providers, policymakers, and policy and code jurisdictions such as states and cities). This report was developed in two phases. In the first, BTO worked with a team from Navigant Consulting (now Guidehouse) to characterize objectives, opportunities, and current activities; identify gaps and barriers; and define initiatives. To collect input, Navigant conducted telephone interviews and workshops with industry experts. The initial phase produced a draft report, which was released for public review in 2016 and yielded over 400 comments. Based on these comments, BTO compiled a second draft report that addressed many of those comments while acknowledging changes that had occurred both at BTO and in the industry. Unlike the first draft report, the second focused much more heavily on BTO’s own role, portfolio, and activities. BTO is a direct player in the BEM field - it funds the development of several significant software packages that are embedded in commercial products - and transparency about its goals and future plans is requisite. BTO recognizes that a great number of other public and private organizations contribute to the BEM enterprise. With the second draft report, BTO did not attempt to produce a blueprint for the industry as a whole, but rather a working document BTO can use to iteratively solicit stakeholder input and synthesize it into a program. BTO released the second draft report for public review in 2019. The second round of review generated 83 pages of feedback and comments - almost exactly the length of the draft report itself - a significant portion of which was collected and synthesized by IBPSA-USA Advocacy Committee. This final report incorporates this feedback. This report does not address the use of BEM in support of building-based grid services, a recent BTO initiative called Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings (GEB). In 2019, BTO published a report that specifically addresses the role of BEM - and other “integration” technologies - in GEB.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Overview of Preliminary Concepts for a Port of Alaska Resilient Microgrid

The Port of Alaska in Anchorage enables the economic vitality of the Municipality of Anchorage and State of Alaska. It also provides significant support to defense activities across Alaska, especially to the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) that is immediately adjacent to the Port. For this reason, stakeholders are interested in the resilience of the Ports operations. This report documents a preliminary feasibility analysis for developing an energy system that increases electric supply resilience for the Port and for a specific location inside JBER. The project concept emerged from prior work led by the Municipality of Anchorage and consultation with Port stakeholders. The project consists of a microgrid with PV, storage and diesel generation, capable of supplying electricity to loads at the Port a specific JBER location during utility outages, while also delivering economic value during blue-sky conditions. The study aims to estimate the size, configuration and concept of operations based on existing infrastructure and limited demand data. It also explores potential project benefits and challenges. The report goal is to inform further stakeholder consultation and next steps.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Draft Electric Rule 21 Test Protocols for Advanced Inverter Functions

Disclaimer: The following document includes draft certification protocols and should not be viewed as a consensus-based performance standard. Distributed energy resources (DERs), such as photovoltaic (PV) systems, when deployed in a large scale, are capable of significantly influencing the operation of bulk and local power systems. Looking to the future, European and American stakeholders are working on standards to make it possible to manage the potentially complex interactions between DER and the power system. One of the jurisdictions considering modifications to the DER interconnection requirements is California. To determine what changes could improve electric grid reliability and allow greater penetrations of renewable energy, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC), in conjunction with consultant Frances Cleveland, convened the Smart Inverter Working Group (SIWG) in January 2013. The SIWG--composed of state agencies, utility engineers, national laboratories, manufacturers, trade associations, and advocacy groups--provided the CPUC a set of recommendations in early 2014 1 . The recommendations included specific advanced DER functions and interoperability requirements, along with a proposed timeline, for California to add new capabilities to grid-interconnected DER. On August 18, 2014 the three California Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs)--Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)--drafted a Advice Letter filing to the CPUC setting forth revisions to Electric Tariff Rule 21 to conform to the seven recommendations made by the Working Group 2 . After a comment period, the CPUC issued an update to the IOU recommendations 3 . At the time of this publication, there was no final legal ruling on the CPUC Rulemaking (R.) 11-09-011 ("Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to improve distribution level interconnection rules and regulations for certain classes of electric generators and electric storage resources"). In the U.S., Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTLs) independently verify products to safety and functional standards. PV inverters are certified to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1741 4 . However, new advanced inverter functions described in the SIWG and IOU proposals are not included in this standard, so there is a critical need to develop test protocols for these functions in preparation of a positive ruling by the CPUC. Through a California Solar Initiative Grant, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia or SNL), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), Xanthus Consulting, SunSpec Alliance, Loggerware, and utility and PV inverter manufacturers have collaborated to draft this certification protocol for the Rule 21 SIWG Phase 1 advanced inverter functions. This report also includes test procedures for Phase 2 and Phase 3 functions that will be demonstrated later in the CSI4 project. This collaborative effort was performed in close junction with the UL 1741 Standards Technical Panel (STP) working group. This document represents a snapshot of the draft testing protocols at the time of publication and not a consensus certification protocol for advanced inverters. 1 California Public Utilities Commission, "Recommendations for Updating the Technical Requirements for Inverters in Distributed Energy Resources, Smart Inverter Working Group Recommendations," Filed 7 Feb 2014. 2 J.J. Newlander, R.G. Litteneker, S.W. Walter, M. Dwyer, Joint motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E), Southern California Edison Company (U 338 E) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902 E) regarding implementation of smart inverter functionalities, Rulemaking 11-09-011 Advice Letter, 18 July, 2014. 3 J.T. Sullivan, CPUC Rulemaking 11-09-011 Agenda ID #13460, 13 Nov, 2014. 4 Underwriters Laboratories Std. 1741 Ed. 2, "Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for use with Distributed Energy Resources," 2010.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Environmental Effects Assessment for Proposed Offshore Wind Farm off the Coast of Grays Harbor, Washington

Grays Harbor Wind LLC (GHW) is proposing to develop a floating offshore wind farm offshore of west Grays Harbor County, Washington (Grays Harbor). The proposed GHW Offshore Wind Project (Project) would entail construction, installation and operation of a 1,000-megawatt (MW) offshore wind farm consisting of approximately 75 floating units, each containing a floating foundation and wind turbine generator (WTG). The Project location is approximately 25 miles (21.7 nautical miles [nmi]) offshore west of Grays Harbor, at waters depths of 360 to 700 feet. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was contracted by Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. on behalf of GHW to carry out this preliminary scoping study to evaluate baseline conditions and potential effects on fish and marine mammals from development and operation of a floating offshore wind farm installed within a designated area off the coast of Washington1. Floating offshore wind units installed in an ocean environment as part of the Project would interact with marine wildlife. This Study report provides an initial data aggregation and analysis, using publicly available data, of the Project effects, both negative and positive, on the marine environment. The scope of this assessment is limited by the fact that the Project development is presently at the conceptual level. Data on marine organisms were aggregated and evaluated; however seabirds were evaluated by Herrera Environmental Consulting and, along with bats, were not included in the scope of this study. Significant additional work is necessary to characterize ocean, seafloor, and environmental conditions; select appropriate floating offshore wind technologies; identify construction methods and locations; and assess facility locations, including electrical interconnection. Data aggregation and analysis of seabirds and bats is also needed. Evaluation of the full range of potential environmental effects would be conducted following an award of a lease from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) as part of the leasing, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) environmental review and permitting processes. While this initial data aggregation and analysis uses best available public scientific information and current assumptions about the Project configuration, the effects discussed herein are based on the status of review to-date and may change as Project-specific details are developed.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Report on Field Test at INL Cask Farm of Single Detector Fast Neutron Spent Fuel Cask Verification System

Detecting diversion of spent fuel elements in dry storage casks is challenging due to the thick shielding used in cask construction. Measurements on top of the cask to map the underlying arrangement of the fuel elements and looking for anomalous changes over time has proven difficult to achieve using gamma rays due to the high scattering and attenuation from the thick steel structure, weakening information on the present or absence of fuel bundles. Simulations and laboratory experiments suggest that the high-energy neutron flux (>200 keV) measured directly above each fuel bundle is sufficient to produce a position map that enables detection of the present or absence of fuel bundles, and therefore diversion of a spent fuel bundle. A single-detector spent-fuel monitoring technique based on this principle was development at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The INL Cask Farm in the INTEC technical area at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) offers the capability to test this technique on an MC-10 storage cask which has a distribution of full and empty fuel positions. An experimental test plan for the single-detector verification system was developed in consultation with INL personnel to be completed in FY2021. Due to travel advisories related to COVID-19, the experimental test plan was adapted to enable INL personnel to carry out the measurements in consultation with LLNL personnel following shipment of the LLNL system to INL. Field test measurements of the single detector verification system were successfully carried out at the INL cask farm on September 7-9, 2021. This document summarizes results of the field test.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

United States Nuclear Data Program: Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2023

The work plan described in this document has been developed to cover work to be performed by the U. S. Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) during Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 that begins on October 1, 2022. Previously, 23 work plans have been prepared for the nuclear data program covering FYs 2021-2022. This plan has been prepared in consultation with the members of the Coordinating Committee who represent the organizations participating in the program. Each Coordinating Committee member prepared a draft plan for his/her organization. Each contribution was integrated into a unified work plan. The draft plan was then circulated to the Coordinating Committee for comments and corrections before the final document was submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As was done in previous years, the tasks proposed by the various organizations were reviewed internally according to the following criteria, which were developed considering the mission and goals outlined in past review panel reports and oversight committee discussions, and in consultation with the DOE program manager.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

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

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

A Component-Level Bottom-Up Cost Model for Pumped Storage Hydropower

Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) is currently the largest source of utility-scale electricity storage in the U.S. and worldwide. As the accelerating deployment of variable renewable technologies creates opportunity and value for energy storage, it has become increasingly important to characterize PSH costs to understand how it competes. Site-specific considerations and limited cost data in the public domain make it difficult to estimate capital costs for potential new PSH sites. This report documents a spreadsheet-based tool that addresses this challenge and creates a component-level bottom-up cost model for PSH that can be made publicly available for widespread use. It uses detailed site-level physical characteristics and design specifications to calculate key performance and cost parameters for individual components and the project as a whole. The model was developed in consultation with HDR, Inc. and Small Hydro Consulting to ensure it aligns with industry expectations. It enables PSH cost exploration across a wide range of system assumptions and could be customized or extended for the needs of a variety of users.

cost model↗

Spallation Neutron Source Second Target Station Construction Project: Biological Assessment

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 153 et seq.), as amended (ESA or Act) in section 7(a)(1) directs Federal agencies to conserve and recover listed species and use their authorities in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species so that listing is no longer necessary (50 CFR §402). Furthermore, the Act in section 7(a)(2) directs Federal agencies to consult (referred to as section 7 consultation) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) when their activities “may affect” a listed species or designated critical habitat. This biological assessment (BA) analyzes the potential effects of the proposed Spallation Neutron Source Second Target Station STS construction project on the U. S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) on Federal listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and under consideration for Federal listing bat species, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Engineering Services in a Mission Critical Environment: Engineering Services - Science and Technology Operations’ Infrastructure Support at Los Alamos National Laboratory

As an engineering team within a facilities-driven organization, Engineering Services – Science and Technology Operations (ES-STO), supports Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), playing a pivotal role in the U.S. nuclear stockpile mission. This report outlines ES-STO’s contributions through the installation of crucial systems such as HVAC units, compressors, and scientific specialty equipment, as well as providing expert consultation to optimize laboratory operations. ES-STO’s goal is to ensure that LANL's infrastructure and research facilities are aligned with mission-critical needs, supporting both operational efficiency and safety in the nuclear stockpile management and maintenance. This report discusses the installation processes, ongoing consultations, and the significant impact of our efforts on national security objectives.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 114: Area 25 EMAD Facility Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 114, Area 25 EMAD Facility, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). CAU 114 comprises the following corrective action sites (CASs) located in Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site: • 25-41-03, EMAD Facility (Building 3900) • 25-99-23, Manned Control Car (MCC) and Engine Installation Vehicle (EIV) • 25-33-05, Building 3901, Engine Transport System Maintenance Building (Train Shed) This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing CAU 114. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 114 using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective actions for CAU 114. It is anticipated that the results of the field investigation and implementation of corrective actions will support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. The purpose of the corrective action investigation will be to document and verify the adequacy of existing information; to affirm the decision for either clean closure, closure in place, or no further action; and to provide sufficient data to implement the corrective action. The actual corrective action selected will be based on characterization activities implemented under this SAFER Plan. If specific conditions or findings fall outside the bounds of the conceptual site model, such as an unanticipated release, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) will be consulted to determine the path forward before proceeding. Upon completion of SAFER activities, a closure report (CR) will be prepared and submitted to NDEP for review and approval. The schedule for completion of the CR will be established in consultation with NDEP.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

United States Nuclear Data Program Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2026

The work plan described in this document has been developed to cover work to be performed by the U. S. Nuclear Data Program (USNDP) during Fiscal Year 2026 that begins on October 1, 2025. Previously, 26 work plans have been prepared for the nuclear data program covering FYs 2000-2025. This plan has been prepared in consultation with the members of the Coordinating Committee who represent the organizations participating in the program. Each Coordinating Committee member prepared a draft plan for his/her organization. Each contribution was integrated into a unified work plan. The draft plan was then circulated to the Coordinating Committee for comments and corrections before the final document was submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As was done in previous years, the tasks proposed by the various organizations were reviewed internally according to the following criteria, which were developed considering the mission and goals outlined in past review panel reports and oversight committee discussions, and in consultation with the DOE program manager.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

CMIP7 Data Request: atmosphere priorities and opportunities

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 7 (CMIP7) request for data unlocking key research avenues in atmospheric science and provides justification for the resources needed to produce this data. Topics within the CMIP7 Atmosphere Theme centre around processes and feedbacks in atmospheric science such as clouds, aerosols and atmospheric chemistry, atmospheric circulation, temperature variability and extremes, radiative forcings, and Earth system model evaluation. These topics are summarised in this paper as scientific “opportunities” which will be realised through CMIP7 experiments and Earth system model outputs. These opportunities were submitted by a thematic group of atmospheric science community representatives combined with an extended consultation process. The production of these variables will close key gaps and uncertainties identified during previous rounds of CMIP, and will be broadly used by scientific, policy, governmental, industry, and other communities that rely on climate model projections for research and decision making, including supporting the 7th Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report (AR7). As an author group, we also reflect on the process used to collate this data request and make recommendations to future CMIP governance on implementing a consultation on this scale in the future.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗