Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Technical Scope”

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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Generation IV Benchmarking of TRISO Fuel Performance Models Under Accident Conditions Final Report

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a co-operative international endeavor of fourteen members organized to carry out the research and development needed to establish the feasibility and performance capabilities of the next generation nuclear energy systems. GIF selected six reactor technologies, amongst which is the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) that is primarily dedicated to the cogeneration of electricity and hydrogen. The technical basis for VHTR is the tristructural isotropic (TRISO)-coated particle fuel, the graphite as the core structure, helium coolant, as well as the dedicated core layout and lower power density to removal decay heat in a natural way. At the heart of safety features of the VHTR concept lie the TRISO fuel particles that are designed to keep their structural integrity and retain fission products at temperatures up to 1600°C. As part as the design and future operation of VHTRs, a key aspect is the accurate prediction of fuel performance under irradiation and accident conditions. Modeling and simulation allow prediction of TRISO fuel behavior when subject to neutron flux and in high temperature accident scenarios. The refinement of the fuel performance models and codes is performed by comparison to in-pile and out-of-pile experimental data that reproduce the expected irradiation conditions in high temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs). Historically, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) developed a benchmark dedicated to the validation of predictive methods for fuel and fission product behavior through the Coordinated Research Program CRP-2 (IAEA, 1997). CRP-2 was later updated to cover fuel fabrication, quality assurance, irradiation performance, safety testing, and spent fuel. The scope of the resulting CRP-6 benchmarks focused on HTGR fuel performance and fission product release (IAEA, 2012). Taking advantage of additional TRISO fuel fabrication, irradiation, and safety testing campaigns, GIF launched a Generation IV Benchmarking of TRISO Fuel Performance Models under Accident Conditions in late 2015. This GIF benchmark is a three-year program steered by Idaho National Laboratory (INL, USA). The other participants include the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA, Japan) and the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI, Korea). The objectives of the benchmark are to: follow on the IAEA CRP benchmarks, (2) model fission product release under accident conditions, (3) compare results obtained by the fuel performance modeling codes of the benchmark participants, and (4) compare these code predictions to experimental data. Safety tests chosen for modeling include the first and second experiments of the Advanced Gas Reactor program (AGR-1 and AGR-2) and the High Flux Reactor (HFR) EU1bis experiment. This report presents the results obtained by the three research institutions using their respective fuel performance modeling codes. Comparisons of the corresponding fission product release predictions are made with experimental data from AGR-1, AGR-2, and HFR-EU1bis. The benchmark results show good agreements between all participants but also show a general trend of over-prediction of the experimental release data, which is mainly attributed to the use of over-estimated diffusion coefficients.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Gasification of Coal and Biomass: The Route to Net-Negative-Carbon Power and Hydrogen

One promising process that is a candidate for meeting the goals of the US Department of Energy’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative is to gasify a mixture of coal and biomass to yield a syngas, which can have CO2 removed and then be used to produce hydrogen as well as an off-gas that can be used to flexibly produce power. This concept would overall be carbon net-negative and readily meet the 21st Century Power Plant initiative targets of smaller scale MW generation, high ramp rates and turndown, feedstock flexibility, and high efficiency—at a reasonable cost. Moreover, adding the large-scale production of “ultra-green” hydrogen yields a system tailored for the coming hydrogen economy, providing long-term energy storage and an attractive co-product for sale. The objective of the work being led by the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), with support by Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel), Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Hamilton Mauer International, Inc. (HMI), Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), NexantECA, Inc. (Nexant), and Wärtsilä, is to perform a front-end design and engineering (FEED) study on an oxygen-blown gasification system coupled with water-gas shift, pre-combustion CO2 capture, and pressure-swing adsorption working off a coal/biomass mix to yield high-purity hydrogen and a fuel off-gas that can generate power. Several designs are being considered that will be capable of producing 50 MW net from a flexible generator, over 8500 kg/hr of hydrogen, and net-negative CO2 emissions, at an efficiency of 50% net HHV. The plant would be hosted at an NPPD site, where opportunities for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration have been investigated and the need for low-carbon power and hydrogen is imminent. The principal biomass to be used is corn stover—prevalent in Nebraska where the plant will be located—mixed with Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, necessitating a gasifier that can use this feedstock and be flexible to allow other types. Waste plastics will also be reviewed for use. Two oxygen-blown gasifiers have been identified as candidates that have done testing with biomass including corn stover: the GTI gasifier—a high-pressure, fluidized-bed type—and HMI’s, a lower pressure moving-bed type. Both have relative advantages that are being investigated in the Phase I design study, with a resultant down select of one system for which the FEED will be performed in Phase II. The technical tasks for the proposed project are: • Design Development: Completion of design activities necessary to provide inputs for the FEED study. Multiple design cases will be assessed with the selection of the optimal one for the FEED. • Investment Case Preparation: Development of the draft investment case for the proposed process with business cases performed for the proposed host site and two other locations. • Host Site Selection: Evaluation of the two potential host sites within NPPD’s portfolio to select the preferred candidate based on technical, economic, and environmental considerations. • Environmental Information Volume (EIV) Development: Completion of the EIV for the host site. • FEED Study: Completion of a FEED study based on the design selected in Phase I. A Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Analysis will also be performed for the process. • Update Investment Case: Finalization of the investment case based on findings from the FEED. The advantages of the proposed project are significant. Having an engaged U.S. power utility willing to provide a host site that will produce energy from coal plus a deep and experienced team is critical; the process meets all the goals of DOE’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative at an estimated total plant cost of ~$880M and a production cost of hydrogen of ~$2/kg-H2 while producing net-negative carbon power. If developed, this process has real commercial potential in the United States—supported by EPRI’s initial review of the considerable interest from selected U.S. utilities—and elsewhere around the globe. The process has fewer environmental hurdles compared to other concepts, lowering regulatory and protest risks—providing a pathway to preserving the viability of a critical indigenous energy source by transforming its use to match a changing world. This presentation will outline the motivation for the effort, summarize project plans, work completed to date, results of the Design Development task, and detailed work scope for the remainder of the project.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2023

Gasification of Coal and Biomass: The Route to Net-Negative-Carbon Power and Hydrogen

One promising process that is a candidate for meeting the goals of the US Department of Energy’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative is to gasify a mixture of coal and biomass to yield a syngas, which can have CO2 removed and then be used to produce hydrogen as well as an off-gas that can be used to flexibly produce power. This concept would overall be carbon net-negative and readily meet the 21st Century Power Plant initiative targets of smaller scale MW generation, high ramp rates and turndown, feedstock flexibility, and high efficiency—at a reasonable cost. Moreover, adding the large-scale production of “ultra-green” hydrogen yields a system tailored for the coming hydrogen economy, providing long-term energy storage and an attractive co-product for sale. The objective of the work being led by the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), with support by Bechtel Corporation (Bechtel), Gas Technology Institute (GTI), Hamilton Mauer International, Inc. (HMI), Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), NexantECA, Inc. (Nexant), and Wärtsilä, is to perform a front-end design and engineering (FEED) study on an oxygen-blown gasification system coupled with water-gas shift, pre-combustion CO2 capture, and pressure-swing adsorption working off a coal/biomass mix to yield high-purity hydrogen and a fuel off-gas that can generate power. Several designs are being considered that will be capable of producing 50 MW net from a flexible generator, over 8500 kg/hr of hydrogen, and net-negative CO2 emissions, at an efficiency of 50% net HHV. The plant would be hosted at an NPPD site, where opportunities for enhanced oil recovery and sequestration have been investigated and the need for low-carbon power and hydrogen is imminent. The principal biomass to be used is corn stover—prevalent in Nebraska where the plant will be located—mixed with Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, necessitating a gasifier that can use this feedstock and be flexible to allow other types. Waste plastics will also be reviewed for use. Two oxygen-blown gasifiers have been identified as candidates that have done testing with biomass including corn stover: the GTI gasifier—a high-pressure, fluidized-bed type—and HMI’s, a lower pressure moving-bed type. Both have relative advantages that were investigated in the Phase I design study, with a resultant down select of one system for which the FEED will be performed in Phase II. The technical tasks for the project are: • Design Development: Completion of design activities necessary to provide inputs for the FEED study. Multiple design cases will be assessed with the selection of the optimal one for the FEED. • Investment Case Preparation: Development of the draft investment case for the proposed process with business cases performed for the proposed host site and two other locations. • Host Site Selection: Evaluation of the two potential host sites within NPPD’s portfolio to select the preferred candidate based on technical, economic, and environmental considerations. • Environmental Information Volume (EIV) Development: Completion of the EIV for the host site. • FEED Study: Completion of a FEED study based on the design selected in Phase I. A Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Analysis will also be performed for the process. • Update Investment Case: Finalization of the investment case based on findings from the FEED. The advantages of the proposed project are significant. Having an engaged U.S. power utility willing to provide a host site that will produce energy from coal plus a deep and experienced team is critical; the process meets all the goals of DOE’s 21st Century Power Plant initiative at an estimated total plant cost of ~$880M and a production cost of hydrogen of ~$2/kg-H2 while producing net-negative carbon power. If developed, this process has real commercial potential in the United States—supported by EPRI’s initial review of the considerable interest from selected U.S. utilities—and elsewhere around the globe. The process has fewer environmental hurdles compared to other concepts, lowering regulatory and protest risks—providing a pathway to preserving the viability of a critical indigenous energy source by transforming its use to match a changing world. This presentation outlines the motivation for the effort, summarizes project plans, work completed to date, results of the Phase I effort and, and detailed work scope for the remainder of the project in the Phase II FEED effort.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2024

Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Coal-Biomass Co-Firing Power Plants with Carbon Capture and Storage

The United States has set a target to achieve the net-zero economy by 2050. Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BECCS) is one of the promising negative-emission routes in the mitigation portfolio to help meet this goal. Coal-biomass co-firing with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a key BECCS technology to realize the carbon mitigation at fossil-fuel power plants. The mitigation potential of co-firing option is affected by numerous critical factors, such as biomass properties, co-firing level, and carbon capture rate. The objectives of the study are to characterize and estimate the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and performance of coal-biomass co-firing power plants with CCS, determine the breakeven co-firing level at power plants necessary to achieve net-zero life cycle emissions, and quantify the variabilities and uncertainties in life cycle emissions. The scope of the life cycle assessment includes the fuel supply, combustion-based power generation, and CO2 transport and storage. A fuel-based life cycle module is developed and embedded in the Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM), a fossil-fuel power plant modeling tool. This study then applies the enhanced IECM to conduct the process-based life cycle assessment for an array of biomass co-firing scenarios. Deterministic analysis indicates that reaching net-zero life cycle emissions in a biomass co-firing plant without CCS deployment is challenging. Combining biomass co-firing and CCS deployment can significantly lower the overall life cycle emissions of power plants. Net-zero life cycle emissions can be achieved with a 20 wt.% co-firing level and 90% CCS when the Powder River Basin coal is co-fired with energy crops or forestry residues. However, the breakeven co-firing level for net-zero emissions depend on the selected fuel properties. Fuel supply and plant operation are the critical stages influencing the life cycle emissions of power plants with 90% CCS. Deployment of deep CCS beyond 90% CO2 capture can remarkably reduce operational emissions and the breakeven co-firing level. With 99% CCS, the breakeven co-firing rate can be reduced to 12% on average. These findings highlight the trade-offs between technical performance and environmental impact of biomass co-firing at coal-fired power plants and emphasize the role of deep CCS in achieving a net-zero emissions future.

Wu, Wanying↗
DOE OSTI2022

Coupled Neutronic and Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of a Natural Circulation Based Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Using VERA-CS

As part of the work supported by a US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear FY 2020 Voucher, Holtec International subsidiary SMR LLC (hereinafter referred to as Holtec) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory entered into a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) to develop coupled multiphysics core models of the Holtec developed small modular reactor (SMR), SMR-160. The scope of the 1 year project was to use the DOE–developed tool set, VERA, to analyze several aspects of a representative SMR-160 core design. The goals of the project were to perform the code-to-code benchmarking and to provide Holtec with a confirmatory calculations to compare against the results with the codes used in the SMR-160 design, identify and resolve areas of discrepancy between the two models to give Holtec a basis for selecting certain tool and model options, and develop a workflow so that the VERA model could be adapted easily to any future changes in the design of the SMR-160 core. The work proceeded in four phases: 1. Developing the initial VERA model based on Holtec-provided core design information; 2. Comparing VERA results with Holtec-provided calculations for the first five cycles; 3. Developing a VERA transient model based on the prior model; and 4. Training Holtec personnel on VERA and hand-off the developed models. This report summarizes at a high level the completed tasks. Details of the tasks and results are reserved for the full report, which will not be publicly released for 5 years per the terms of the CRADA. The report is titled “Coupled Neutronic and Thermal Hydraulic Analysis of a Natural Circulation Based Small Modular Reactor (SMR) using VERA-CS” and has the ORNL technical report number ORNL/TM 2021/2303 (NFE-20-08305)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI1994

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 35, No. 2, July-December 1994]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 179 Consideration of Postaccident Consequences in the Determination of Safety Objectives for Future Nuclear Power Plants in France, D. Queniart, A. Sugier, and J. Lochard; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 187 Nuclear Safety Research: The Phebus FP Severe Accident Experimental Program, P. von der Hardt, A. V. Jones, C. Lecomte, and A. Tattegrain; 205 Containment Performance Analysis of the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, S. H. Kim, R. P. Taleyarkhan, and V. Georgevich; 213 Assessment of Fission Product Deposits in the Reactor Coolant System: The DEVAP Program, G. Le Marois and M. Megnin; 222 Erratum to “A Review of the Available Information on the Triggering Stage of a Steam Explosion," Vol. 35, No. 1, CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 223 Effects of Normal Aging on Calibration and Response Time of Nuclear Plant Resistance Temperature Detectors and Pressure Sensors, H. M. Hashemian; DESIGN FEATURES: 235 Defense in Depth Against the Hydrogen Risk—A European Research Program, F. Fineschi; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 246 Technical Note: A Preliminary Analysis of the Risks to Hong Kong Resulting from Potential Accidents of Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant, Z. Shi and X. Wei; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 253 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; SPECIAL SECTION ON TMI-2 VESSEL INVESTIGATION PROJECT: 256 Three Mile Island—New Findings 15 Years After the Accident A. M. Rubin and E. Beckjord; 269 Relocation of Molten Material to the TMI-2 Lower Head, J. R. Wolf, D. W. Akers, and L. A. Neimark; 280 Insight Into the TMI-2 Core Material Relocation Through Examination of Instrument Tube Nozzles, L. A. Neimark; 288 Physical and Radiochemical Examinations of Debris from the TMI-2 Lower Head, D. W. Akers and B. K. Schuetz; 301 Results of Metallographic Examinations and Mechanical Tests of Pressure Vessel Samples from the TMI-2 Lower Head, D. R. Diercks and G. E. Korth; 313 Margin-to-Failure Calculations for the TMI-2 Vessel, J. Rempe, L. Stickler, S. Chavez, G. Thinnes, R. Witt, and M. Corradini; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 328 1993 Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program Results, L. N. Vanden Heuvel, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Copinger, J. W. Minarick, B. W. Dolan, and P. D. O’Reilley; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 339 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 345 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 234 Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 356 1995 International Incineration Conference; 358 Fifth International Controls and Instrumentation Conference; 359 ANS International Topical Meeting on Safety of Operating Reactors; 359 Fifth International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety; 360 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment Methodology and Applications; 351 The Authors; 357 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

DOE Deep Energy Retrofit Cost Survey

A survey was conducted by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on deep energy retrofit (DER) market drivers, opportunities, and challenges. The survey was part a research study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy to gather information on the costs of DER from home performance contractors and stakeholders. Cost data was gathered from DER projects that use a comprehensive, whole-home approach to drastically reduce energy use and improve performance. DER projects often aim at reducing energy use by 50% or more. In addition, these projects can improve home comfort and potentially benefiting occupant health. Yet, market adoption of DER has been limited. Major limiting factors include complex projects, high costs, perceived risks, extensive disruption, and unfamiliar work scopes to some contractors. In order to better understand what motivates and deters DER projects in today’s market, a survey was conducted to gather this information, and to learn about promising approaches and technologies from the industry perspective. Past surveys on homeowners and home energy performance professionals have studied the motivations and barriers of energy efficiency retrofits. Two surveys of home energy performance professionals were conducted in recent years. The Resources for the Future (RFF) Home Energy Audit and Retrofit Survey was conducted in 2011 by recruiting energy auditors and retrofit installers through members of Efficiency First and Building Performance Institute (BPI) accredited contractors. The survey asked about the business and services that respondents provide, how often homeowners follow their recommendations to retrofit their homes, and the respondents’ opinion on barriers faced by the industry. The survey found that not enough homeowners know about energy audits, but more importantly, it is the high cost of retrofits compared to low energy prices that is responsible for few energy audits and retrofits being completed. The RESNET Deep Retrofit Industry Stakeholder Survey was conducted shortly after launching of the EnergySmart Home Performance Team program. The EnergySmart Team program involves a formal agreement among allied contractors who are engaged in high performance retrofits. Using this allied team approach, teams can pool their expertise and provide each other with customer referrals. The survey asked EnergySmart Team members and outside stakeholders on questions about market and technical barriers in performing home energy retrofits. Survey respondents identified lack of consumer awareness and lack of affordable financing for consumers as the leading market barriers to home energy retrofits. In their written comments, many survey respondents also echoed that the high costs of retrofit compared to low energy prices is a market barrier. Respondents found “certain housing characteristics that prevent effective retrofit” and “energy analysis software inaccuracy or limitations” are the two leading technical barriers. Their choices for technical barriers were reflective of the energy rater/auditor role played by the majority (78%) of the survey respondents. In comparison to past surveys, this work aimed to gather inputs from a broader segment of the home performance industry to identify the opportunities and barriers faced by DERs from all perspectives. The survey asks for project costs to help breakdown the high costs of DERs. This survey is also motivated by a need to better understand the role of DERs in reducing energy use by the residential sectors and meeting climate goals. The survey is designed towards obtaining more substantive inputs from survey respondents by encouraging written comments, rather than setting the goal to reach a large number of respondents. We took this approach because DER is currently still a niche market, so it is more valuable to gather in-depth inputs from individuals who are performing this work rather than getting to the masses.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

First Ever Field Pilot on Alaska's North Slope to Validate the Use of Polymer Floods for Heavy Oil EOR a.k.a Alaska North Slope Field Laboratory (ANSFL)

Alaska’s high viscosity oil resources that range between 20–30+ billion barrels represent about a third of known North Slope original oil in place (OOIP). These resources are primarily concentrated in the Schrader Bluff formation (also called West Sak on the Western North Slope) and Ugnu reservoirs and are categorized as “viscous oils” and “heavy oils” owing to their in-situ viscosities between 5–10,000 cP and up to a million+ cP respectively. The viscous oil deposits are relatively deeper (2,000 – 5,000 ft), whereas the heavy oils are somewhat shallower (2,000 – 4,000 ft). The typically shallow depths and the proximity to the continuous permafrost results in relatively lower formation temperatures and pressures, and consequently higher viscosities. The vertical depth vs. viscosity delineated in Paskvan et al. (2016) differentiates the viscous and heavy oils. As depicted in Paskvan et al. (2016), currently the main focus (referred to as “developing”) is on the viscous oils in the Schrader Bluff formation in the Milne Point Unit (MPU). Notwithstanding this Alaska North Slope (ANS) specific categorization, we use the industry adopted, all-inclusive term “heavy oil” for all high viscosity oils. Resource characterization and additional details can be found in topical publications of Paskvan et al. (2016) and Targac et al. (2005). Despite the vast resource base, the development pace, vis-à-vis the production of heavy oils has been very slow and limited due to multiple factors such as cost, logistics, challenging arctic environment, poor waterflood sweep efficiency due to mobility contrasts, and significantly high minimum miscibility pressures (MMP). Most importantly, typical or standard thermal methods that are commonplace elsewhere (Canada, California) are inapplicable due to the continuous permafrost. As a consequence, cumulative production of heavy and viscous oils is a little over 1% of OOIP slope wide and currently, there is hardly any production from Ugnu. However, on a broader level, these unfavorable factors are outweighed by the fact that (1) these resources, within the established infrastructure, are too large to ignore because of their strategic importance to the Nation and the State of Alaska and (2) Prudhoe Bay type diluent crude oil is still available for heavy oil transport through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Similarly, from a reservoir standpoint, the following factors also are important offsets: (1) favorable rock characteristics of Schrader Bluff; (2) the promise demonstrated by the initial scoping studies (Seright 2010, 2011) suggesting significant increase of heavy oil recovery using polymer flooding; (3) successful field implementation in Canada, China and elsewhere in the world, and (4) availability of the existing pairs of horizontal injector-producer in Schrader Bluff The foregoing was recognized as the best readily available opportunity for significant investment by the US Department of Energy and the field operator Hilcorp Alaska LLC to conduct the first ever field scale experiment to test the polymer flooding technology to unlock the vast heavy oil resources on ANS. With this primary goal in mind, the research team embarked on a ~4.5 years long project that focused on the field polymer pilot complemented by supporting laboratory and simulation studies. As documented in this final report, over the course of the project, many lessons have been learned and valuable field and supporting laboratory data has been collected, which also is complemented by numerical reservoir simulations. We have been able to establish the injectivity of polymer solution, evidence of significant reduction in the water cut of previously waterflooded pattern, effective propagation of a hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (HPAM), benefits of low salinity water, provide practical guidance on handling of produced fluids containing breakthrough polymer, fit-for-purpose forecast-worthy history matched simulation model, polymer EOR benefit of 700-1000 bopd over waterflood, and most importantly a low polymer utilization factor of ~1.7 lb/stb. In summary this project is deemed as a scientific, technical and economic success, having met all objectives, fulfilled deliverables and within budget, providing impetus to apply polymer EOR throughout the Milne Point Field paving the way for even heavier viscosity oils in the Ugnu area, eventually extending the economic life of TAPS.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accelerating Nuclear Facility Mission Completion Through an Improved Chemical Hazard Control Strategy - 20460

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management [1], explicitly identifies hazardous materials in addition to radioactive materials when establishing the scope of materials that must be evaluated in Hazard Category (HC) 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. This inclusion has led to a near decade-long progression of more and more rigorous application of chemical hazard controls in these facilities. The progressive addition of more rigorous chemical hazard controls has occurred across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex, having been driven by contractors and regulators alike. However, chemical hazards in other DOE facilities have been, and continue to be, controlled using traditional industrial safety centered strategies. Thus, identical chemical hazards are controlled using dramatically different approaches based solely on the facility type. Not only are the controls different, the analysis and derivation rigor and requirements are also significantly different. In particular, chemical control derivation and application in non-nuclear facilities are much less onerous than the comprehensive hazard analysis process used in nuclear facilities, even in circumstances in which chemicals are not initiators to, or do not exacerbate a nuclear event. While the derivation and control approaches used in these two types of facilities are disparate, the safety results are similarly effective based on a review of reported chemical events from 2014 through 2018. While both approaches achieve comparable safety outcomes, the approach used in nuclear facilities results in significantly greater preparation costs and implementation costs. Furthermore, the problem with the differing approach is not relegated to the control preparation and implementation burden. The operational impact of potentially unnecessary controls slows mission completion without a corresponding increase in safety, not to mention the dilution of the importance of Technical Safety Requirements. The proposed solution must first include a critical and thorough examination of DOE Complex and top-tier chemical industry chemical hazard control practices, coupled with a similar examination of the driving facility regulatory requirements. Results from the examination can then be used to fuel a bold departure from current chemical control practices in Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. Development of an improved and consistent chemical hazard control process would follow, one that continues to ensure safety while accelerating mission completion and significantly reducing the burden associated with chemical hazard control development and implementation. The improved process must establish a hierarchy where radiological hazards are addressed using safety class and safety significant controls and chemical hazards are addressed using overarching safety management programs (with limited unique exceptions). The improved Hazard Category 1,2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy, while compliant with 10 CFR 830 [1], would be founded on the requirements in 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program [2], and the complementary DOE O 151.1D, Comprehensive Emergency Management System [3]. In this way, the Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy would, wherever appropriate, be the same process used at other DOE Complex facilities. Ultimately, the improved process will maintain safety and significantly reduce costs and life cycle risk through faster mission completion. (authors)

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

Joint Development of SAS4A Code in Application to Oxide-fueled LFR Severe Accident Analysis

The scope of this project was to pursue specific SAS4A liquid-metal cooled reactor (LMR) safety analysis software extensions to simulate postulated accidents with fuel failures for oxide-fueled Lead-cooled Fast Reactors (LFRs). Since most U.S. LMR experience is on sodium-cooled fast reactor options based on past testing and operation experience with EBR-II and FFTF, the DOE’s legacy fast reactor safety analysis capabilities were focused on metal-fueled pool-type concepts with sodium coolant. In recent years, Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC) has decided to pursue an LFR design as one of their next generation nuclear technology options because of its favorable safety and economics attributes. Oxide fuel is considered among other fuel options due to previous WEC experience with this fuel form. Development of this new technology requires the availability of adequately accurate computational tools, some of which can be adapted from versions of similar software used for analysis of other LMRs. Although Argonne National Laboratory’s (ANL) SAS4A/SASSYS-1 safety analysis software suite (shortened as SAS4A code hereafter for brevity) has the basic capabilities to model LFR system designs, the SAS4A code modules used in the analysis of accidents with fuel/cladding failures lack appropriate models for the unique phenomena that govern as-irradiated oxide-fuel damage mechanisms in lead coolant. Therefore, the objective of this project was to extend the capabilities of SAS4A with mechanistic oxide-fuel failure models in lead coolant for margin to failure assessments, analysis of failure modes, location and timing of failures under different accident scenarios consistent with the whole-plant dynamic response including the reactivity feedback, and assessment of the potential for fuel damage propagation due to potential fission gas jet and fuel-fragment/molten fuel impingement to neighboring fuel pins in an assembly. This report provides mainly a summary of Argonne’s technical contributions in the joint project, but the reports and publications by the Participant team are included as references at the end of the report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Reversed Field Pinch Research in MST (Final Technical Report)

This is the Final Technical Report for the cooperative agreement DE-FC02-05ER54814 titled “Reversed Field Pinch Research in MST” spanning the funding period 4/1/2005 to 12/14/2019. It summarizes key results from MST research, major publications and presentations, and the mentoring of graduate students and postdocs. The Madison Symmetric Torus (MST) is unique within the U.S. and world fusion plasma program. As one of just five operating reversed field pinch (RFP) experiments, and the only one in the U.S., MST has had an important role in advancing the fundamental understanding of the RFP plasma configuration. The MST research program targets topics that intersect with all three goals. While MST provides a unique opportunity to advance the science and fusion potential of the RFP, as a cousin to the tokamak and stellarator plasma configurations the RFP is a valuable partner in establishing validated predictive capability for fusion science more generally. Specific combinations of the major variables in toroidal confinement, like magnetic field strength, plasma current, and shaping, define the different configurations. By exploring adjacent regions in this major variable parameter space, the RFP exposes dependencies not otherwise accessible in the tokamak and stellarator. This diversity enlarges the arena for scientific discovery, both for fusion and plasma physics. The basic science emphasis for MST research has been the self-organizing behavior of RFP plasmas. This inspired MST’s participation in the NSF Physics Frontier Center for Magnetic Self-Organization in Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas (CMSO), which ran from 2004-2016 and motivated a substantial fraction of MST’s research goals and capabilities. By all measures the MST Program has been remarkably successful in publications, community engagement, and mentoring of young scientists. While the DOE-FES’s proof-of-principle program for the RFP now languishes through the cessation of this cooperative agreement, operation of MST continues as one of two devices included in the new Wisconsin Plasma Physics Laboratory (WiPPL) basic science user facility. The scope of present research for MST in WiPPL is narrowed to the basic science associated with the RFP magnetic configuration and the advancement of specific fusion topics, which now includes studies of disruptions in tokamak plasmas. The world’s effort in RFP fusion research continues, despite a lack of U.S. federal support to investigate the RFP configuration for fusion application, most notably through a major upgrade to the RFX-mod2 facility in Italy [1] and the recent construction of the KTX facility at USTC in China. First plasmas for RFX-mod2 are anticipated in 2021.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Safety Basis Compliant Flexible Operations [Capstone Project]

Compliant nuclear operations must be weighed against the radiological risk to the worker, public, and the environment. This project set out to look at one facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) and compare the risk with the operational restrictions associated with the Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs). The hope was to identify controls that could be reduced or simplified while maintaining compliance with 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management. This would result in increasing facility operational flexibility and efficiency. Controls were identified to be simplified or eliminated based on risk. This identification was initially envisioned from the perspective of reanalysis of the accident and hazard analysis consequences. Additionally, it was envisioned that fire testing could show that the consequences of a fire are not as dramatic as analyzed. Specific facility controls were identified that cause operational inefficiencies. Based on data collection, two controls were identified for further evaluation. The first control was combustible loading within the waste storage buildings, and the second control is related to the seismic power cutoff switch. In evaluating the combustible loading control, the thought is that the fire suppression system (FSS) provides adequate protection and the combustible loading controls do not need elevation to a TSR control. The FSS, along with the Fire Protection Program, would provide protection to prevent a fire from impacting large amounts of stored waste material. The seismic switch was more of a challenge. When reviewing the facility operation, it was determined that the facility does not operate anywhere near the established material-at-risk (MAR – radioactive material) limits. By adjusting these limits, a reduced consequence could be achieved and hence, a significant risk reduction achieved. A new operating mode would be used to achieve this reduction. A reduced MAR limit was successfully used as a test case for snow removal during this project. This project expands on that trial case as related to combustible loading and the seismic power cutoff switch TSRs. This will increase the efficiency of operations with reduced TSR controls while reducing overall facility risk. This is a win-win situation for Triad National Security, LLC (Triad) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Due to schedule and budgetary constraints, not all envisioned work scope was accomplished. However, it is maintained in this report for future efforts.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Modernization of Technical Requirements for Licensing of Advanced Non-Light Water Reactors: Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Evaluation of Defense-in-Depth Adequacy

This document supports the work contained in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 18-04 “Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Advanced Reactor Licensing Basis Development” Revision 0. NEI 18-04 presents a modern, technology-inclusive, risk-informed, and performance-based (TI-RIPB) process for selection of Licensing Basis Events (LBEs); safety classification of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) and associated risk-informed special treatments; and determination of defense-in-depth (DID) adequacy for non-LWRs. The NEI guidance document provides one acceptable means for addressing the aforementioned topics as part of demonstrating a specific design provides reasonable assurance of adequate radiological protection. This report provides the framework and associated methodology guidelines and discussion for establishing, then evaluating, confirming, and documenting the adequacy of defense-in-depth (DID) for advanced non-light-water reactor technologies. It was developed as part of the Licensing Modernization Project led by Southern Company and cost-shared by the United States Department of Energy and has benefited from considerable NRC formal reviews and public workshops. The methodology converts the DID philosophy into a structured process that is implementable, embraces existing United States and international definitions and philosophies of DID that set the foundation for the process. It builds on the DID framework developed in the Department of Energy Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project and earlier works on this subject. The approach to establishing DID adequacy involves the incorporation of DID attributes into the plant capabilities and programmatic elements of DID. The integrated evaluation of DID adequacy includes both quantitative elements to incorporate risk-informed and performance-based (RIPB) considerations and qualitative elements that address uncertainties and limitations in the quantitative models and supporting data. Demonstration of DID adequacy ensures that there are multiple layers of defense for risk-significant challenges to the design and that the plant capabilities and programs that support each layer are provided in a manner that minimizes dependencies among these layers. The focus of this report is assurance of DID adequacy with respect to protection of the public from radiological exposures resulting from accidental releases of radioactive material. While other hazards are not specifically addressed, this methodology is expected to be beneficial for determining DID adequacy for them as well. Risk-informed evaluation of DID considers the integrated performance of all plant SSCs and associated programs to manage daily operational activities, transients, and accidents, including the evaluation of strategies for accident prevention and mitigation. The RIPB LBE scenario methodology used in this evaluation defines the challenges to the plant safety features included in the plant design basis and beyond, and the scope of all deterministic and probabilistic safety evaluations. By examining event sequences across the whole spectrum of LBEs, a systematic assessment of DID can be accomplished.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Structural, Criticality, and Radiation Dose Calculations to support SNF Loading into a DOE Standard Canister

The DOE Standard Canister Demonstration Project includes the development of an internal support structure (ISS) for the 4.6-m long and 45.7-cm diameter canister. This study presents structural evaluations, criticality safety assessments, and dose rate calculations conducted within the scope of the ISS design process to support smooth canister loading operations and to ensure safe storage, transportation, and disposal of Peach Bottom 1 Core II (PB2) and Fort St. Vrain (FSV) SNF, currently stored at the CPP-603 facility of the INL. The ISS includes a 316L stainless steel basket that holds twelve PB2 SNF rods. Further, six individual, 78.7-cm long, 316L stainless steel columns are equally spaced and welded to the inner canister wall at the lower end of the shell. These columns represent the FSV basket and can hold one FSV SNF element. An A92014 T6 aluminum spacer disc is bolted to the bottom plate of the PB2 basket to vertically restrain the FSV SNF element after the PB2 basket is placed inside the canister on top of the FSV basket. The structural evaluations of the ISS followed applicable ASME BPVC.III.3 guidelines and included finite element (FE) analyses of the PB2 basket structure; analyses of welds and bolds; buckling analyses of selected components, and acceptability assessments of the expected basket deformations under loading operations. The criticality safety assessments used the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) software architecture version 6.2 including ENDF/B-V continuous energy cross-section libraries, considering intact SNF in a single storage overpack or two multi-storage overpack configurations, and intact or failed SNF configured for disposal. The dose rate computations are based on source terms taken from the DOE Spent Fuel Database. The isotopic composition was decay corrected for the year 2022 using the ORIGEN module in the SCALE suite. A 19-group photon spectrum and 27-group neutron-source spectra were generated and used in MCNP to calculate estimated dose-equivalent rates, both on DOE Standard Canister contact and at a radial distance of from the canister surface. The results of this study indicate a structurally sound system that can uphold its criticality safety functions throughout its intended operational phases. Further, they increase confidence that sufficient radiological protection is technically achievable.

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

Interactions of Polar and Nonpolar Groups of Alcohols in Zeolite Pores

Understanding the quantitative interactions among zeolite pore walls, Bro̷nsted acid sites, and molecules with both polar and nonpolar regions is essential for scoping out the potential of zeolites as sorbents and catalysts. Purely siliceous zeolites (MFI and Beta in the present study) are hydrophobic, whereas those containing aluminum are considered hydrophilic, preferentially adsorbing organic molecules even in aqueous environments. To characterize these interactions, we use primary alcohols of increasing molecular weight, quantifying their specific interactions in the confined pore space of the alkyl (CH x ) and OH groups. Three types of interactions were identified: (i) alkyl CH x groups interacting with the zeolite pore walls (approximately 10 kJ mol −1 per carbon), (ii) alcohol OH groups interacting with the pore walls (30−35 kJ mol −1 ), and (iii) alcohol OH groups interacting with Bro̷nsted acid sites (37 kJ mol −1 ). All three interactions were well mirrored by computational simulations. The contribution of the alkyl CH x groups was inferred from the incremental increase in sorption enthalpy with increasing molecular weight; the interaction strength of the OH groups was determined by extrapolating the global adsorption enthalpy of the alcohols to a hypothetical OH group without an alkyl group. This value was identical to the adsorption enthalpy of water. The experiments demonstrated that only water has an adsorption enthalpy on zeolite pore walls lower than its condensation enthalpy (30−35 kJ mol −1 vs 45 kJ mol −1 ), limiting the concentration of water that can be adsorbed.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2022

Structural, Criticality, and Radiation Dose Calculations to Support SNF Loading into a DOE Standard Canister

The DOE Standard Canister Demonstration Project includes the development of an internal support structure (ISS) for the 4.6-m-long and 45.7-cm-diameter canister. This study presents structural evaluations, criticality safety assessments, and dose rate calculations conducted within the scope of the ISS design process to support smooth canister loading operations and to ensure safe storage, transportation, and disposal of Peach Bottom 1 Core II (PB2) and Fort St. Vrain (FSV) SNF, currently stored at INL’s CPP-603 facility. The ISS includes a 316L stainless-steel basket that holds 12 PB2 SNF rods. The PB2 basket rests on top of six individual, 78.7-cm-long, 316L stainless-steel columns that are equally spaced and welded to the inner canister wall at the lower end of the shell. These columns represent the FSV basket and can hold one FSV SNF element. An A92014 T6 aluminum spacer disc is bolted to the bottom plate of the PB2 basket to vertically restrain the FSV SNF element after the PB2 basket is placed inside the canister above the FSV basket. The structural evaluations of the ISS followed applicable ASME BPVC.III.3 guidelines and included finite element (FE) analyses of the PB2 basket structure; analyses of welds and bolds; buckling analyses of selected components, and acceptability assessments of the expected basket deformations under loading operations. The criticality safety assessments used the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) software architecture Version 6.2, including ENDF/B-V continuous-energy cross-section libraries, considering intact SNF in a single storage overpack or two multistorage overpack configurations and intact or failed SNF configured for disposal. The dose rate computations are based on source terms taken from the DOE Spent Fuel Database. The isotopic composition was decay corrected for the year 2022 using the ORIGEN module in the SCALE suite. A 19-group photon spectrum and a 27-group neutron-source spectrum were generated and used in MCNP to calculate estimated dose-equivalent rates, both on DOE Standard Canister contact and at a radial distance of 1 m from the canister surface. The results of this study indicate a structurally sound system that can uphold its criticality safety functions throughout its intended operational phases. Furthermore, this study provides confidence that sufficient radiological protection is technically achievable.

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

PAVC: The foundation for a Pan-Arctic Vegetation Cover database

Field-measured Arctic vegetation cover data is essential for creating accurate, high-quality vegetation structure and composition maps. Extrapolating field data into high-resolution cover maps provides detailed, function-specific information for use in Earth System Models, vegetation classifications, and monitoring vegetation change over time and space. However, field campaigns that collect plant cover vary substantially in scope, method, and purpose, which makes them difficult to unify across data stores, and they are often not designed to meet remote sensing needs. In this work, we synthesized and harmonized field-based fractional cover data from various data stores to create a high-quality, consistent repository schema for remote sensing-based vegetation cover mapping applications. We developed a reproducible workflow for synthesizing visual estimate and point-intercept fractional cover data. The resultant Pan-Arctic Vegetation Cover (PAVC) database contains synthesized fractional cover at both the species and plant functional type levels. The latter includes absolute foliar cover for deciduous shrubs and trees, evergreen shrubs and trees, forbs, graminoids, lichen, bryophytes, and “other” vegetation, as well as absolute cover for litter and top cover for water and bare ground.

Steckler, Morgan R. [Oak Ridge National Laboratory↗
DOE OSTI2020

Data-Driven Understanding of Low-to-Moderate Income Customers’ Adoption and Financial Qualification in Community Solar (Final Technical Report)

When Solstice began working in the community solar industry, it quickly became clear that there was a wide disparity along race and class lines in terms of what kind of household traditional solar offerings benefited. Solstice is an organization that aligns itself to the principles of a Just Transition, or the concept that a transition to a green economy should benefit and prioritize historically marginalized groups of people. Given that low-income communities are disproportionately burdened by our current polluting fossil fuel economy, Solstice set out to investigate the root causes of the exclusion of low to moderate income (LMI) households in the community solar market. As we worked more and more with financiers, developers, and LMI households, we recognized that significant barriers to entry in a developer-owned project were credit threshold requirements. A FICO score of 750 and higher discriminates against LMI households that are not financially stable enough to take on multiple lines of credit (or who may not have been deemed credit worthy enough to access a line of credit) yet who may have been reliable utility customers. As Solstice began looking further into preliminary data and speaking to community-based organizations (CBOs) that serve LMI households, we found our hypothesis to be worth investigating; there was indeed a subset of LMI households with poor FICO scores (or no FICO score at all) that had perfect bill payment history. Though initially Solstice was intent on gathering a body of data to prove or disprove this hypothesis, we were also concerned that all this proof of a financially stable and reliable customer was not being incorporated into FICO, and wondered if such a score would be possible. After preliminary research into the existence of alternative scores, Solstice realized that many mission-driven lending institutions rely on alternative metrics that are formulated for their specific industry. However, we also realized that community solar did not have an alternative credit underwriting mechanism, though there was great need from solar financiers for one. We anticipated that the creation of an EnergyScore would contribute to financiers’ need to qualify more people, as these entities are desperately looking for ways to lower the cost of customer acquisition. FICO turns away nearly 50% of potential customers (according to our own acquisition experience), and much of the community solar industry is realizing that FICO is not the perfect qualifying mechanism. Additionally, with a grounding in energy justice, just transitions, and climate justice, Solstice recognizes the need for a solution that addresses a more urgent need for LMI households to access renewable energy savings and relieve energy burdens. With funding from the Department of Energy, we gathered the data necessary to build the EnergyScore, reached out to mission-driven developers willing to test the metric, and secured several demonstration projects to pilot the EnergyScore. After acquiring customers for these demo projects using the EnergyScore, we will be continuously collecting customer payment behavior data. Though it goes beyond the scope of this project, we plan to disseminate this de-identified data with the wider community solar industry, which includes not only financiers and developers, but other mission-driven nonprofits, solar cooperatives, community-based organizations, environmental justice activists, and academics. While we intend to disprove the notion that LMI households cannot be included in projects without acutely increasing the risk to project finances, we also hope the data can be used to negotiate better pricing of systems and terms of ownership for community groups seeking to build inclusive projects.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗