SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EPA”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2020

Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) and Hydraulic Property Table for CONUS

The continental flood inundation mapping (CFIM) framework is a high-performance computing (HPC)-based computational framework for the Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND)-based inundation mapping methodology. Using the 10m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data produced by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3DEP (the 3-D Elevation Program) and the NHDPlus hydrography dataset produced by USGS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a hydrological terrain raster called HAND is computed for HUC6 units in the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). The value of each raster cell in HAND is an approximation of the relative elevation between the cell and its nearest water stream. Derived from HAND, a hydraulic property table is established to calculate river geometry properties for each of the 2.7 million river reaches covered by NHDPlus (5.5 million kilometers in total length). This table is a lookup table for water depth given an input stream flow value. Such lookup is available between water depth 0m and 25m at 1-foot interval. The flood inundation map is then computed by using HAND and this lookup table based on the near real-time water forecast from the National Water Model (NWM) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). HAND and the Hydraulic Property Table version 0.2. is created to correspond to data updates in the USGS 1/3 arcsec DEM, the USGS National Hydrography Dataset, including its Water Boundary Dataset, and the NHDPlus medium resolution dataset. This dataset comprises 331 HUC6 units for CONUS (excluding the five great lakes units), each is a downloadable zip file. Version 0.1 was computed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign in 2016 and is currently hosted at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC). Please cite this data DOI and the following publications and data DOIs when you use HAND and the hydraulic property table: Liu, Yan Y., David R. Maidment, David G. Tarboton, Xing Zheng, and Shaowen Wang. 'A CyberGIS integration and computation framework for high-resolution continental-scale flood inundation mapping.' JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54, no. 4 (2018): 770-784. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12660 Zheng, Xing, David G. Tarboton, David R. Maidment, Yan Y. Liu, and Paola Passalacqua. 'River channel geometry and rating curve estimation using height above the nearest drainage.' JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54, no. 4 (2018): 785-806. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12661 Liu, Y. (2018). Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) for CONUS - v0.1, HydroShare, https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.69f7d237675c4c73938481904358c789 LICENSE FOR USE -- MAPS AND DATA DISCLAIMER This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MAPS AND DATA DISCLAIMER The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described or information contained on this map or associated series of maps. The data and related map graphics are not legal, land survey or engineering documents and are not intended to be used as such. ORNL gives no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, utility or completeness of this information. The user of these maps and data assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of the maps and data. ORNL disclaims all warranties, representations or endorsements either express or implied, with regard to the information contained in this map product, including, but not limited to, all implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement. This preliminary map product is for research and review purposes only. It is not intended to be used for emergency management operational or life safety decisions at the local or regional governmental level or by the general public. Users requiring information regarding hazardous conditions or meteorological conditions for specific geographic areas should consult directly with their city or county emergency management office.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) and Hydraulic Property Table for CONUS - Version 0.21 (20200601)

The continental flood inundation mapping (CFIM) framework is a high-performance computing (HPC)-based computational framework for the Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND)-based inundation mapping methodology. Using the 10m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data produced by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3DEP (the 3-D Elevation Program) and the NHDPlus hydrography dataset produced by USGS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a hydrological terrain raster called HAND is computed for HUC6 units in the conterminous U.S. (CONUS). The value of each raster cell in HAND is an approximation of the relative elevation between the cell and its nearest water stream. Derived from HAND, a hydraulic property table is established to calculate river geometry properties for each of the 2.7 million river reaches covered by NHDPlus (5.5 million kilometers in total length). This table is a lookup table for water depth given an input stream flow value. Such lookup is available between water depth 0m and 25m at 1-foot interval. The flood inundation map is then computed by using HAND and this lookup table based on the near real-time water forecast from the National Water Model (NWM) at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). HAND and the Hydraulic Property Table version v0.21 is an upgrade to v0.2. Version 0.21 applies NHD HR etching to DEMs for all HUC6 units before running the HAND workflow. This new version also fixed the issue of void areas along HUC boundary. This dataset comprises 331 HUC6 units for CONUS (excluding the five great lakes units), each is a downloadable zip file. Version 0.1 was computed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign in 2016 and is currently hosted at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC). Please cite this data DOI and the following publications and data DOIs when you use HAND and the hydraulic property table: Liu, Yan Y. Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) and Hydraulic Property Table for CONUS - Version 0.2. (20200301). Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. (2020). DOI: 10.13139/ORNLNCCS/1608331 Liu, Yan Y., David R. Maidment, David G. Tarboton, Xing Zheng, and Shaowen Wang. 'A CyberGIS integration and computation framework for high-resolution continental-scale flood inundation mapping.' JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54, no. 4 (2018): 770-784. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12660 Zheng, Xing, David G. Tarboton, David R. Maidment, Yan Y. Liu, and Paola Passalacqua. 'River channel geometry and rating curve estimation using height above the nearest drainage.' JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 54, no. 4 (2018): 785-806. DOI: 10.1111/1752-1688.12661 Liu, Y. (2018). Height Above Nearest Drainage (HAND) for CONUS, HydroShare, https://doi.org/10.4211/hs.69f7d237675c4c73938481904358c789 LICENSE FOR USE -- MAPS AND DATA DISCLAIMER This resource is shared under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ MAPS AND DATA DISCLAIMER The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described or information contained on this map or associated series of maps. The data and related map graphics are not legal, land survey or engineering documents and are not intended to be used as such. ORNL gives no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, utility or completeness of this information. The user of these maps and data assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of the maps and data. ORNL disclaims all warranties, representations or endorsements either express or implied, with regard to the information contained in this map product, including, but not limited to, all implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement. This preliminary map product is for research and review purposes only. It is not intended to be used for emergency management operational or life safety decisions at the local or regional governmental level or by the general public. Users requiring information regarding hazardous conditions or meteorological conditions for specific geographic areas should consult directly with their city or county emergency management office.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Total metals & anion concentration data; Slate River floodplain, Crested Butte, CO; May 2020-September 2020

This data package includes processed and undiluted measurements for metal and anion concentrations from pore water (groundwater) samples from the Slate River floodplain of Crested Butte, CO, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? Samples were collected between May and September of 2020. These measurements were all recorded at the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants (ALEC) at the University of Arizona located in Tucson, AZ. Groundwater samples were extracted from a network of installed rhizon (Rhizosphere Research Products, part no. 19.60.21F, 0.6 micrometer mesh size) and piezometer wells within the river floodplain. All water samples were shaded from sun exposure during extraction from the subsurface and preserved at 4C until measured at ALEC.Analysis by ICP-MS:Measurements for total metals were made on the Agilent 7700x ICP-MS (for total metals) – Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA.The analytical QA/QC protocol was adapted from US EPA Method 200.8 for analysis by ICP-MS. Calibration standards were prepared from multi-element stock solution (Sigma-Aldrich Multielement standard solution for ICP, St. Louis, MO) using matrix matched to sample solutions (either 2% HCl or HNO3 from AriStar Plus,grade acids from VWR Scientific). Calibration curves include at least 7 points with correlation coefficients > 0.995. The QC protocol includes a continuing calibration blank (CCB), a continuing calibration verification (CCV) solution and at least one quality control sample (QCS) to be analyzed just after calibration and again after every 12 samples and at the completion of the run. The QCS solutions are from an independent source, such as NIST SRM 1643e - Trace Elements in Water, or QCS solutions from High Purity Standards (Charleston, SC). Acceptable QC responses must be between 90 and 110% of the certified value. An internal standard (Rh) is added via on-line addition into the sample line using a mixing tee.Analysis by Ion Chromatography (Anions):The protocol follows Method 4110 in Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater.The instrument used is the Thermo Scientific Dionex ICS-6000 using AS+AG22 column set for anion analysis with isocratic method using sodium carbonate eluent. Detection is by chemical suppression of eluent conductivity. Quality control solutions and mixed analyte standards purchased from Inorganic Ventures, Christiansburg, VA.All files are in csv format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Total metals, carbon, nitrogen & anion concentration data; Slate River & East River floodplains, Crested Butte, CO; May 2022-October 2022

This data package includes processed and undiluted measurements for metal, total carbon, total nitrogen, and anion concentrations from pore water (groundwater) and surface water samples from the Slate River and East River floodplains of Crested Butte, CO, focus field sites for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? Samples were collected between May and October of 2022. These measurements were all recorded at the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants (ALEC) at the University of Arizona located in Tucson, AZ. Groundwater samples were extracted from a network of installed rhizon (Rhizosphere Research Products, part no. 19.60.21F, 0.6 micrometer mesh size) and piezometer wells within the river floodplain. All water samples were shaded from sun exposure during extraction from the subsurface and preserved at 4C until measured at ALEC.Analysis by ICP-MS (metals):Measurements for total metals were made on the Agilent 7700x ICP-MS (for total metals) – Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA. The analytical QA/QC protocol was adapted from US EPA Method 200.8 for analysis by ICP-MS. Calibration standards were prepared from multi-element stock solutions (SPEX Certiprep, Metuchen, NJ). Calibration curves include at least 7 points with correlation coefficients > 0.995. The QC protocol includes a continuing calibration blank (CCB), a continuing calibration verification (CCV) solution and at least one quality control sample (QCS) to be analyzed just after calibration and again after every 12 samples and at the completion of the run. The QCS solutions are from an independent source, such as NIST SRM 1643e - Trace elements in water, or QCS solutions from High Purity Standards (Charleston, SC). Acceptable QC responses must be between 90 and 110% of the certified value. Lastly, a suitable internal standard (usually Rh, In, Ga or Ge) is added using on-line addition into the sample line and mixing tee.Analysis by Shimadzu TOC-L (TOC/TN):The TOC-L system is a combustion technique where liquid samples are injected and combusted into CO2 for carbon detection by non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) and NO for detection by chemiluminescence. A calibration curve using five standard solutions between 0.1 and 7 ppm for carbon and 0.05 and 3.5 ppm for nitrogen is made for each type of measurement with a linearity >0.99. All samples, standards, and QC’s are prepared in 24mL scintillation vials that have been baked for 4hrs at 475 Cº and made using RO water (18.2mΩ). QC’s include a calibration blank check (CCB), continuing calibration check (CCC), and a certified reference material check (CRM). All QC’s are within ±10% error and are run before and after each batch of samples. Samples are diluted and rerun if any measurement concentrations are above the highest standard.Analysis by Ion Chromatography (Anions):The instrument used is the Thermo Scientific Dionex ICS-6000 using AS+AG22 column set for anion analysis with sodium carbonate eluent. A calibration curve using five standard solutions between 5 and 250 umol/L is made with a linearity >0.99. Standards and QC’s are prepared in 15mL polypropylene conical tubes, pipetted along with the samples into 1.5mL polypropylene vials. Dilutions are made using RO water (18.2mΩ). QC’s include a calibration blank check (CCB), continuing calibration check (CCC), and a certified reference material check (CRM). All QC’s are within ±10% error and are run before and after each batch of samples. Samples are diluted and rerun if any measurement concentrations are above the highest standard.All files are in csv format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Durability testing of actual Hanford waste glasses and their non-radioactive simulant glasses

The low-activity waste (LAW) fraction of Hanford tank waste will be converted to glass at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) and disposed on the Hanford site. The chemical durability of LAW glasses has been researched for decades to satisfy contract requirements. Most LAW glass durability data has been generated on non-radioactive simulant glasses fabricated via crucible melts. These non-radioactive glasses were chosen due to safety and cost reasons with confidence that radioactive waste glasses would exhibit similar behavior. To reduce the risk of significant differences in laboratory test response data between WTP melter waste glass and simulant glass, Product Consistency Tests (PCT, i.e., ASTM C1285-21) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1313 durability tests were performed on actual and simulant LAW glasses fabricated using laboratory-scaled melters. Actual and simulant glass durability test results are presented and statistically compared. Finally, differences in test responses were found to be within experimental uncertainty.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Coal Power Plant Reinvestment Visualization Tool

This tool, available at https://energycommunities.gov/coal-power-plant-reinvestment-visualization-tool/, serves as a public database and map for the purposes of enabling state and local economic development officials, project developers, and power plant owners to identify and pursue opportunities for plant and community reinvestment. The Coal Power Plant Reinvestment Visualization Tool focuses on coal power plants that have been closed or set-to-retire, alongside key infrastructure characteristics that are relevant for potential redevelopment reinvestment opportunities, including the opportunity to query these data based off pre-defined or user-set queries to identify opportunities for coal power facility reinvestment to support solar, wind, manufacturing, and nuclear. These Data for visualization and query include, but are not limited to: • Electric Transmission Lines • EPA Brownfield Sites (assessed with Federal funding) • Petroleum Terminals • Ports • Railroads • Others The tool will be updated periodically to provide relevant information to enable state and local economic development officials, project developers, and power plant owners to identify and pursue opportunities for economic revitalization and community reinvestment. Within this application data are focused on U.S. power plants with coal generation, where at least one on-site generator utilizes or utilized coal as a fuel source, including planned retirements through 2058 (EIA, 2024). Additional information on energy communities and revitalization opportunities can be accessed on the Interagency Working Group on Coal & Power Plant Communities & Economic Revitalization Energy Communities website (https://energycommunities.gov).

Closures↗

DOE OSTI2023

Energy Assets Transformation Web Mapping Application

This submission contains the link and geospatial materials used in the Energy Assets Transformation Web Mapping Application. The zip file contains 19 geospatial layers in a file geodatabase called EAT.gdb to be grouped in the following categories. 1. Industrial Assets: Coal Generation Units Retirements 2012-2040 (EIA); Examples of Repurposing Projects (32 projects in total); Abandoned Coal Mines (CORD, SkyTruth); Abandoned or Orphaned Wells (for ten states only). 2. Energy Transition Communities: 48C (e) Tax Credits - Designated Energy Communities (IRA); Index of Deep Disadvantage; Local Energy Action Program (LEAP); EJ Index for Proximity to Hazardous Waste (EPA). 3. Regional Landscape: State-Level Funding Programs (relevant to repurposing projects, for 2022 and 2023 only); Coal Flows from Mine to Plant 2021 (EIA), Variable Renewable Energy Shares (Wind and Solar, 2021, EIA). 4. Supporting Infrastructure: Railroads (HIFLD), Electric Power Transmission Lines (HIFLD), Major Highways (NHPN, DOT), Major Ports (National Atlas of the U.S.); Independent System Operators (HIFLD), NERC Regions and Subregions (HIFLD).

abandoned coal mines↗

DOE OSTI2025

useeio-infra-app

This GitHub repository hosts the source code to an RShiny web application that implements the U.S. Environmentally-Extended Input-Output (USEEIO) model in order to conduct a screening-level life cycle analysis. The USEEIO model is an open-source model developed and maintained by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with colleagues and contractors, and is available on GitHub (https://github.com/USEPA/USEEIO). The USEEIO model incorporates environmental data into pre-existing Economic Input-Output Models, which look at the interdependence of different economic industries. In this web application, the focus is on energy infrastructure applications; however, it can be used to implement USEEIO in any area for which this model is applicable.

AS↗

DOE OSTI2022

interflow: A Python package to organize, calculate, and visualize sectoral interdependency flow data

Many economic sectors rely on an uninterrupted “upstream” supply of a resource to conduct their primary functions, leaving them vulnerable to adverse effects should that resource flow be interrupted or compromised (OECD, 2017; U.S. EPA, 2010). Well-known examples of these relationships include water demand by the energy sector (e.g., thermoelectric cooling for nuclear generation) (Grubert & Sanders, 2018; Webber, 2017) and energy demand by the water sector (e.g., electricity required to treat or move water in the public water sector) (Congressional Research Service, 2017) though many others exist. Being able to calculate and document these interdependencies and evaluate where the greatest cross-sectoral intensities and flows exist can reveal opportunities to enhance the overall network. Despite the implications and potential impacts, however, these interconnections and flows have been historically complex to analyze and understand. The interflow package provides a flexible tool to organize, calculate, and visualize (using Sankey diagrams and other visualizations) sectoral interdependency flows for multiple subsectors and resources. This tool can help decision-makers, researchers, and other audiences more easily pull meaning from these interdependencies to reveal multi-faceted opportunities and risks. interflow can help investigate questions such as (1) which sectors have high cross-resource dependencies, (2) how does demand for a resource in various sectors compare across regions, and (3) where the sectoral and regional opportunities are for enhanced efficiency, security, and resiliency.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2020

Long-Term Methane Emissions Rate Quantification and Alert System for Natural Gas Storage Wells and Fields

The Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and other critical stakeholders (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), state regulators, and industry) seek to more accurately characterize and quantify methane emissions from natural gas storage wells. These efforts will reduce uncertainties in estimates of these emissions in USEPA’s current Green House Gas Inventory (GHGI) under their Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP; EPA, 2016). Emission factors currently used to estimate methane emissions from gas storage wells are the same factors used for onshore natural gas production wells (USEPA, 2016). This study has developed a robust and representative dataset of emissions from disaggregated gas station wellhead components and related emission factors that will inform future enhancements to the GHGI and GHGRP. Extensive methane emissions measurements and meteorological data were collected from three active storage facilities representing two of the three types of storage facilities (i.e., depleted gas reservoir and salt cavern) to support development of emissions factors specifically for gas storage wells and associated components. Methane emissions were quantified from both above-ground components (e.g., pipe fittings and valves) and seepage from the ground surface in proximity to gas storage wellheads.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Notification of Operational Scope Change for the FTWC Venting Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

This letter is intended to provide you an update on the scope of work for the venting of the Flanged Tritium Waste Containers (FTWCs) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Technical Area (TA-) 54. This project was described in the Application for Pre-Construction Approval 1 ("the Application") that was approved by EPA Region 6 on May 22, 2019. As operational planning for this project has been finalized, the scope of work described in the Application has slightly changed. The project has now determined that each FTWC may be vented multiple times, and these venting activities may take place at more than one location. The original application only discussed a single venting operation for each FTWC at a single location, TA-54. However, the radionuclide inventory and expected air releases remain bounded by the values described in the Application.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Carbon Dioxide Utilization for Plasma Nanosynthesis of Carbon

This DOE Phase I SBIR project has developed a glow discharge-based plasma process to convert carbon dioxide to sold carbon and water. By adding natural gas, the additional enthalpy can be used to reform the output carbon dioxide to value added carbon and EPA-compliance-grade water, thus creating a process that has no gaseous products at all, such as: CO 2 + CH 4 → 2C + 2H 2 O, which is simply the exothermic reverse of the syngas reaction. During the Phase I work, several milestones were accomplished successfully. a. First, a synthesis reactor was designed, assembled, and successfully operated using the combined simultaneous operation of glow discharge and microwaves. DC discharge and microwaves can also be operated individually, allowing multiple configurations to be used This is one of the first reactors of its kind, and perhaps the first ever. b. Second, the research team successfully produced carbon nanomaterials using carbon dioxide as the source of carbon via CO 2 + 2H 2 → C + 2H 2 O. This is certainly one of the first processes to use plasma to convert carbon dioxide to nanocarbon, and perhaps the first ever demonstration. c. Third, it was also shown that carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide can be used with methane to reduce the synthesis temperature of ASI graphene decorated carbon nanotubes (GDCNT). Hitherto GDCNT were only fabricated above 1200 °C. GDCNT was synthesized at 780 °C. CO 2 + C → 2CO; 2 CO + CH 4 → 3 C + 2H 2 O, and also, CH 4 + CO 2 → 2 C + 2H 2 O. d. Fourth, closed cycle synthesis of nanomaterial was demonstrated with over 80% conversion of carbon dioxide to carbon and water was achieved, on the basis of pressure drop during glow discharge. e. Fifth, plasma operation was achieved via glow discharge and microwaves at 500 Torr, demonstrating a path forward to atmospheric pressure operation f. Sixth, using carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in an electrothermal furnace, we produced 350 grams per hour of high-quality nanotubes in a single furnace, compared to 200 grams per hour for the commercial process. Controlling the enthalpy prevents self-extinguishing hot gas pyrolysis. Thus, carbon dioxide enhances the properties and reduces the production cost. This is a near term advance that can go into trial production in the near term. g. Seventh, economic analysis suggests an economic plan forward, producing carbon nanotubes for less than $50 per pound. The use of hydrogen and carbon dioxide as the feedstocks is acceptable from a cost basis, and in fact hydrogen is less expensive than carbon monoxide. Niche applications are available in the near term, though quantities relevant to sequestration remain a far-term goal. h. Eighth, though it was not the research team’s intention to create a new process for producing carbon monoxide, it was realized that almost by accident we demonstrated plasma reforming of carbon dioxide via a plasma version of the reverse Boudouard reaction. Accordingly, we have contacted a major gas manufacturer (Matheson Gas) to determine whether there is interest in creating an industrial version of the process. i. Ninth, a long-range strategy is identified in which a progressively more carbon-conscious world will seek to create solid carbon as a means of sequestering carbon dioxide, impeding its return to the atmosphere. In the long term the price must drop by orders of magnitude with larger production, and assuming success, solid carbon could be the preferred form for sequestration rather than underground storage. If carbon can be made as cheaply as dirt, or nearly so, then it can serve a useful purpose as structural material for housing, soil amendments in agriculture and fillers to modify low areas.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Demonstration of μCHP in Light Commercial Hot Water Applications

Internal combustion engine driven combined heat and power (CHP) systems produce power while the waste heat is recovered and used for another purpose. For µCHP systems (less than 50kWe output) overall efficiencies can reach over 90% for products currently on the market throughout the world. On a fuel basis this offers an advantage over using grid-based power and another fuel for heat. Additionally, the cost of natural gas on an energy unit basis is significantly less expensive than electric power. This difference can lead to substantial savings for the end user of a CHP system. In some parts of the world, particularly Germany and Japan, µCHP has become a common part of the heat and distributed generation equipment mix. Market analysis conducted in 2012 showed that in North America there is potential of a 5,300 units per year market for µCHP, resulting in an annual energy savings of approximately 13.5 TBtu and more than $84 million in annual customer savings. However, µCHP still has not seen much market penetration in North America. This study helps to identify some of the reasons why, address roadblocks that still need to be overcome and provide experience to established best practices. Nine commercial sites were initially identified (fitness club, surgical center, senior community, resort and spa, commercial laundry, two multi-family housing, restaurant and manufacturing facility). Systems from two different manufacturers were installed at five sites total, but due to unforeseen circumstances, only three of those sites were finally commissioned: test data were collected by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. While not all systems were installed as intended, the project resulted in the following key findings: Micro combined heat and power is an unfamiliar technology for building owners and plumbing and electrical contractors that serve the buildings most suited for µCHP. Manufacturers will need to be aggressive in providing training and providing broad support to successfully bring the technology to market.; The proper integration of µCHP into other building systems is the most critical part of a successful installation. Manufacturers will need to be able to provide the expertise to train, advise and support the mechanical contractors during the design and installation of the heat integration system.; Regulations governing µCHP varies across the country. There are a few UL standards (UL 2200 and UL 1741) that apply nationally. Emissions are governed by EPA except in California where the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has established their own standard. Requirements that dictate installation and interconnection are dependent on local building codes and local utility processes and requirements. Some out of date building codes do not offer clear guidance for these requirements, leading to confusion. This makes developing training and determining broadly applicable best practices difficult.; Installation costs of µCHP are a key factor in making an installation successful. It is critical that these costs and all national, state and local regulations be understood and accounted for by all parties involved in the installation before a project is undertaken.; A robust customer service organization is important to meet the needs of the customers. These systems require annual maintenance and service and local capability is needed to keep costs inline.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Soil Sample Plan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f. August 2020

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semivolatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 2 and 3. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Integrating Health and Energy Efficiency in Multi-Family Buildings

The intersection between health and the built environment has long been known. Since the 18 th century, public health officials have been targeting building issues, such as crowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate ventilation in efforts to reduce infectious diseases and fire hazards. More recently, federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HUD, and the DOE have been working to reduce or eliminate indoor building factors that are known to have adverse health impacts on Americans, including reducing lead in housing and indoor air pollution that causes respiratory disease, and ensuring access to adequate heating, cooling, and moisture control. PNNL, in support of FEMP’s HBI, undertook a review of literature and existing best practices to identify current activities and research on the intersection between traditional energy-efficiency measures and occupant health within multi-family buildings. While the HBI methodology has focused on traditional office building spaces, it is now expanding into additional building use types. This overview explores some of the most impactful resources to help property owners and managers understand more about multi-family residential buildings that are both healthy and energy efficient. The federal government provides direct oversight and operation across several types of multi-family residential housing, including dormitories, barracks, and senior community living centers.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2021

Industry Partnerships & Their Role In Reducing Natural Gas Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Phase 2

This analysis is the product of collaboration between Our Nation’s Energy Future (ONE Future) and the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). This analysis is an update to Phase 1 of the collaboration between ONE Future and NETL. Phase 1 had three objectives: 1. Calculate a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profile representative of ONE Future’s supply chain, including methane (CH 4 ) emission rates. 2. Compare ONE Future’s emission profile to the emission profile for the U.S. natural gas supply chain. 3. Evaluate specific emission reduction opportunities. Phase 2 has two key enhancements over Phase 1: 1. The reporting year of the data is updated from 2016 to 2017. 2. The emission profiles and the specific emission reduction opportunities are regionalized for the ONE Future supply chain. The ONE Future supply chain is based on data provided by ONE Future members for all their U.S. onshore assets. ONE Future’s data are mostly representative of their participation in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is supplemented by ONE Future facilities that are not required to report to GHGRP. The U.S. scenario is based on NETL’s life cycle analysis (LCA) of natural gas extraction and power generation, which also uses data from the GHGRP (but does not include non-GHGRP facilities). In addition to the data from these sources, NETL accounted for uncertainty due to data variability, data limitations, and variability in liquids unloading frequency and event duration. This report is a re-issue of the 2020 study (published on July 28, 2020). It revises the device count in the mitigation strategy “pipeline pump-down before maintenance” in the Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Analysis section of the report (Section 7). Please see the addendum for more details on this revision and resultant changes. This revision does not change most of our conclusions and recommendations. It only changes the total methane reduced from all the mitigation opportunities (low cost and high cost) from 6.5 Bcf CH 4 /yr to 4.8 Bcf CH 4 /yr.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan

The requirements of the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit are fulfilled through execution of LANL's fourth strategic goal: “Enabling mission delivery through next-generation facility, infrastructure, and operational excellence.” With input from our stakeholders, we will continue to fulfill those requirements and to improve our waste operations. In 2015, the Laboratory purpose statement focused waste management efforts by directing delivery of mission success through operational effectiveness and scientific excellence. This Plan advances that purpose through community involvement. In the process of achieving our national security mission, Los Alamos National Laboratory generates some hazardous and mixed waste. Hazardous waste is solid waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded as commercial products, such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, or as the byproducts of operations. Specific substances are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 261: 40 CFR Part 261. Hazardous waste management activities are regulated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) pursuant to New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA; Chapter 74, Article 4 NMSA 1978) and regulations under the Act. In 1989, NMED issued the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (EPA ID Number NM0890010515-1) that established standards for the Laboratory to manage, store, and treat hazardous wastes on-site and to undertake the closure, post closure care, and cleanup as necessary, of permitted waste management units. On November 30, 2010, NMED renewed the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the Permit). In June 2020 the Permittees submitted a permit renewal application to the NMED for their review and approval. The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan (CRP) describes the scope of public involvement in the activities of the Permit. The CRP is specifically designed to facilitate the community outreach, engagement, and relations activities concerning the Laboratory’s Hazardous Waste Facility Permit and coordinates with but does not include public involvement for other Laboratory programs, initiatives, or environmental activities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Update of Emission Factors of Greenhouse Gases and Criteria Air Pollutants, and Generation Efficiencies of the U.S. Electricity Generation Sector

The last decade has seen a steady evolution of the electricity generation sector. Fuels used for electricity generation have shifted from coal to cleaner energy sources such as natural gas and renewables including solar, wind, and other renewable sources. The share of U.S. electricity generated from coal decreased from 45% in 2010 to 24% in 2019, and is expected to decrease further to 13% by 2050. The conversion efficiency of electricity generation has also increased gradually for fuels such as natural gas due as less-efficient old generators are retired and more-efficient generators replace them. These changes in the electricity generation industry are likely to cause changes in the emissions from power generation units. Emission factors of greenhouse gases (GHG) including CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O, and criteria air pollutants (CAPs) including CO, NO x , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and SO x , from power plants are important parameters for estimating life-cycle emissions associated with vehicle electrification, energy systems, and the production of materials and chemicals. The electricity generation technologies and associated emission factors in the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies (GREET) model need to be updated to reflect recent developments in the electricity generation sector. The most recent update of the electricity generation emission factors in GREET adopted a mixed method. The emission factors of CH 4 , N 2 O, NO x , and SOx were estimated using a “topdown” approach by dividing the total emissions by the total net electricity generation, because emission data of these pollutants are readily available in the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). For other CAPs such as CO, VOC, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 , emission data were not reported in eGRID. A “bottom-up” method was used to estimate the emission factors for these pollutants by considering generic uncontrolled emission factors and the pollutant removal efficiencies of emission control technologies adopted in the electricity generation sector. However, the uncontrolled emission factors and the emission removal efficiencies of various emission control technologies considered in the 2012 study came from the legacy AP-42 emission factors, and may not reflect the actual emission performances of the electricity generation sector of today. To leverage new data that recently became available, especially emission data measured from continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS), we developed a new “top-down” approach to estimate efficiencies and GHG and CAP emission factors for electricity generation from combustion of individual fuel types by individual combustion technologies on the basis of power-generation data from U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) form EIA-923, and plant emission data from Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) dataset and National Emissions Inventory (NEI) dataset. Detailed discussion of the method and data used in this study can be found in Section 2.1. With this topdown approach, we aim to improve the estimates of energy efficiencies and emission factors for power plants using a more consistent methodology, and to update the emission factors, generation efficiencies, and generation technologies mixes in GREET to reflect recent technology advancements in the electricity generation sector.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗