Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “MANAGEMENT PLANNING”

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 271 records · Page 15
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

HPC Analytics of Fused Thermal Plants Data to Optimize Operating Envelope

In this project, ORNL extensively reviewed the ORAP RAM data, and it guided us to develop machine learning models that can predict time to next failures and forecast failure trends, which will be useful for optimizing power plant operation strategies. More specifically, we trained multiple random forest models and evaluated the model accuracy to validate with 10+ years of historical data. In addition, we implemented a web-based graphical user interface system for the models to show how our models can be used in more intuitive ways. This proof of concept allowed exploration of model use with power plant operators in mind. Developed machine learning models will be helpful for managing risks, planning maintenance and operation, ultimately reducing the down time and increasing the service hours. For future work, there are several interesting research topics including but not limited to model enhancement, creating synergy with traditional failure modeling approaches, and data-driven actionable recommendation and suggestions.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Data and code repository for "How do the weather regimes drive wind speed and power production at the sub-seasonal to seasonal timescales over the CONUS?"

There has been an increasing need for forecasting power generation at the sub-seasonal to seasonal (S2S) timescales to support the operation, management, and planning of the wind-energy system. At the S2S timescales, atmospheric variability is largely related to recurrent and persistent weather patterns, referred to as weather regimes (WRs). In the study "How do the weather regimes drive wind speed and power production at the sub-seasonal to seasonal timescales over the CONUS?", we identify four WRs that influence wind resources over North America using a self-organizing map (SOM) algorithm. These WRs are responsible for large-scale wind and power production anomalies over the CONUS at the S2S timescales. The WR-based reconstruction explains up to 50% of the monthly variance of power production over the western United States, and the explanatory power generally increases with the increase of timescales. The identified relationship between WRs and power production reveals the potential and limitations of the regional WR-based wind resource assessment over different regions of the CONUS across multiple timescales. This repository includes all the data and codes we use for analyses in this study. Users may use them to reproduce the results of this study on their end.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Editorial: Achieving Water-Energy-Food Nexus Sustainability: A Science and Data Need or a Need for Integrated Public Policy?

The benefits of addressing the water, energy, and food sectors in an integrated manner is gaining significant recognition. An integrated approach can provide improved resource use efficiencies, more coherent environmental policies, and an overall strategy for achieving sustainability in the three sectors, as outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2 (Food), 6 (Water), and 7 (Energy). Societies are concerned with ensuring food security, avoiding wars over water, and creating opportunity by ensuring access to energy. To be effective, however, this approach needs to be adopted at all levels of societies including government, private and civil society and reinforced by management and planning methods. This special issue identifies different approaches that are either being conceptualized or tested to support the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus approach. The articles contribute to answering the question, “Is achieving Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus Sustainability a science and data need or an integrated public policy need?” In either case, both natural and social sciences will need to combine to support science issues or integrated policy issues. The papers explore the ways in which science, data, and policy development could help to define integrative principles and policies for the three sectors. This approach could expand beyond the water, energy, and food sectors to include health, environment, trade, commerce, and international assistance thereby providing broad support to the SDGs. Moreover, this issue demonstrates that data combined with new technologies (tools and models) can support better decision-making when adopted by governments and the sectors.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Impacts of water scarcity on agricultural production and electricity generation in the Middle East and North Africa

Incorporating the interdependencies between water, energy and food (WEF) within an integrated approach of planning and management could help nations worldwide to address sustainability concerns. This is a topic of great importance for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, where water is a very limited resource. In this study, we develop an analytical framework to analyze the water-energy-food nexus in the MENA region to inform the formulation of integrated strategies for water, energy and food activities. Our approach is based on an integrated assessment model for the MENA region, which explicitly represents WEF sectors within an economic framework, in tandem with a set of relevant scenarios addressing three key dimensions (socioeconomics, climate and water-management). Using this framework, our study analyzes the current and projected status of water resources in the region, and the potential implications for the agriculture and electricity sectors. Our scenarios demonstrate that water scarcity worsens by the end of the 21st century in most MENA countries, mostly due to growing demands. The impacts of growing scarcity on agriculture are significant, with production projected to drop by 60 percent by 2050 in some countries. On the other hand, and to a lesser extent, water-saving technologies and fuel-switching in the power sector play a key role in mitigating the effects of water scarcity on electricity generation in some parts of the MENA region. Our analysis then underscores the need to reduce the dependence of MENA’s agricultural and energy sectors on water, and transition to renewable energies to reduce water scarcity.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Median bed-material sediment particle size across rivers in the contiguous US

Abstract. Bed-material sediment particle size data, particularly the median sediment particle size (D50), are critical for understanding and modeling riverine sediment transport. However, sediment particle size observations are primarily available at individual sites. Large-scale modeling and assessment of riverine sediment transport are limited by the lack of continuous regional maps of bed-material sediment particle size. We hence present a map of D50 over the contiguous US in a vector format that corresponds to approximately 2.7 million river segments (i.e., flowlines) in the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) dataset. We develop the map in four steps: (1) collect and process the observed D50 data from 2577 U.S. Geological Survey stations or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sampling locations; (2) collocate these data with the NHDPlus flowlines based on their geographic locations, resulting in 1691 flowlines with collocated D50 values; (3) develop a predictive model using the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) machine learning method based on the observed D50 data and the corresponding climate, hydrology, geology, and other attributes retrieved from the NHDPlus dataset; and (4) estimate the D50 values for flowlines without observations using the XGBoost predictive model. We expect this map to be useful for various purposes, such as research in large-scale river sediment transport using model- and data-driven approaches, teaching environmental and earth system sciences, planning and managing floodplain zones, etc. The map is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4921987 (Li et al., 2021a).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Long-term hydro-economic analysis tool for evaluating global groundwater cost and supply: Superwell v1.1

Abstract. Groundwater plays a key role in meeting water demands, supplying over 40 % of irrigation water globally, with this role likely to grow as water demands and surface water variability increase. A better understanding of the future role of groundwater in meeting sectoral demands requires an integrated hydro-economic evaluation of its cost and availability. Yet substantial gaps remain in our knowledge and modeling capabilities related to groundwater availability, recharge, feasible locations for extraction, extractable volumes, and associated extraction costs, which are essential for large-scale analyses of integrated human–water system scenarios, particularly at the global scale. To address these needs, we developed Superwell, a physics-based groundwater extraction and cost accounting model that operates at sub-annual temporal and at the coarsest 0.5° (≈50 km × 50 km) gridded spatial resolution with global coverage. The model produces location-specific groundwater supply–cost curves that provide the levelized cost to access different quantities of available groundwater. The inputs to Superwell include recent high-resolution hydrogeologic datasets of permeability, porosity, aquifer thickness, depth to water table, recharge, and hydrogeological complexity zones. It also accounts for well capital and maintenance costs, as well as the energy costs required to lift water to the surface. The model employs a Theis-based scheme coupled with an amortization-based cost accounting formulation to simulate groundwater extraction and quantify the cost of groundwater pumping. The result is a spatiotemporally flexible, physically realistic, economics-based model that produces groundwater supply–cost curves. We show examples of these supply–cost curves and the insights that can be derived from them across a set of scenarios designed to explore model outcomes. The supply–cost curves produced by the model show that most (90 %) nonrenewable groundwater in storage globally is extractable at costs lower than USD 0.57 m−3, while half of the volume remains extractable at under USD 0.108 m−3. The global unit cost is estimated to range from a minimum of USD 0.004 m−3 to a maximum of USD 3.971 m−3. We also demonstrate and discuss examples of how these cost curves could be used by linking Superwell's outputs with other models to explore coupled human–environmental system challenges, such as water resources planning and management, or broader analyses of multisectoral feedbacks.

Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM)↗
DOE OSTI2021

Assessing boundary condition and parametric uncertainty in numerical-weather-prediction-modeled, long-term offshore wind speed through machine learning and analog ensemble

To accurately plan and manage wind power plants, not only does the time-varying wind resource at the site of interest need to be assessed but also the uncertainty connected to this estimate. Numerical weather prediction (NWP) models at the mesoscale represent a valuable way to characterize the wind resource offshore, given the challenges connected with measuring hub-height wind speed. The boundary condition and parametric uncertainty associated with modeled wind speed is often estimated by running a model ensemble. However, creating an NWP ensemble of long-term wind resource data over a large region represents a computational challenge. Here, we propose two approaches to temporally extrapolate wind speed boundary condition and parametric uncertainty using a more convenient setup in which a mesoscale ensemble is run over a short-term period (1 year), and only a single model covers the desired long-term period (20 year). We quantify hub-height wind speed boundary condition and parametric uncertainty from the short-term model ensemble as its normalized across-ensemble standard deviation. Then, we develop and apply a gradient-boosting model and an analog ensemble approach to temporally extrapolate such uncertainty to the full 20-year period, for which only a single model run is available. As a test case, we consider offshore wind resource characterization in the California Outer Continental Shelf. Both of the proposed approaches provide accurate estimates of the long-term wind speed boundary condition and parametric uncertainty across the region (R 2 >0.75), with the gradient-boosting model slightly outperforming the analog ensemble in terms of bias and centered root-mean-square error. At the three offshore wind energy lease areas in the region, we find a long-term median hourly uncertainty between 10 % and 14 % of the mean hub-height wind speed values. Finally, we assess the physical variability in the uncertainty estimates. In general, we find that the wind speed uncertainty increases closer to land. Also, neutral conditions have smaller uncertainty than the stable and unstable cases, and the modeled wind speed in winter has less boundary condition and parametric sensitivity than summer.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advancing uncertainty characterization for understanding projected water scarcity in multi-sector, multi-actor river basins across scales.

Invited Talk at AGU Fall Meeting 2023 Modeling how human institutions and infrastructure interact with the water cycle is essential to better understand the vulnerability, and resilience of water resources systems from the local to the global scale. This is especially true when investigating multi-sector, multi-actor responses to the effects of long-term changes and short-term shocks. It is also well recognized that uncertainty present throughout the modeling cycle (e.g., in data, functional relations, and model coupling approaches) limits our ability to trace the interactive dynamics of human-water systems, as well as to quantify their implications for management and planning. Systems with large numbers of diverse stakeholders further compound this challenge, as uncertain drivers and complex dynamics might have very disparate effects on water users. The work presented is conducted through the Integrated Multisector Multiscale Modeling (IM3) Science Focus Area, which explores how human and natural systems co-evolve in response to change. Through this multi-year effort, we have developed exploratory modeling methods to better characterize how the uncertain human and natural drivers of water scarcity yield consequential vulnerabilities in institutionally complex, multi-sectoral systems. This talk will specifically present on a series of uncertainty characterization experiments performed in the Upper Colorado River Basin, a sub-basin of the Colorado with thousands of water users. These complementary and systematic experiments are aimed at understanding: How are various uncertain stressors (e.g., climate change, demand growth) affecting the diverse water users of this basin in terms of water shortage? What are the key drivers of this shortage for each user? Methods and results from this work are used to address additional questions on the ability of adaptation to modulate the effects of these uncertain drivers, and on their compounding effects across spatial scales and through sectoral interactions.

Hadjimichael, Antonia↗
DOE OSTI2025

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗
DOE OSTI2021

Real-Time Optimization and Control of Next-Generation Distribution Infrastructure

This presentation highlights the key developments of the ARAP-e NODES project, including the innovative real-time optimal power flow (RT-OPF) algorithm for distributed energy resource (DER) management, trip planning for T+D coordination, and extensive validation of the RT-OPF algorithm in NREL ESIF laboratory with 100+ physical hardware devices, controller-hardware-in-the-loop test at Southern California Edison (SCE), and two field demonstrations.

hardware-in-the-loop↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification and Validation of the Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START) – 22323

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Integrated Waste Management is planning for the eventual transportation, storage, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) from nuclear power plant and DOE sites. The Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START) is a web-based, geospatial decision-support tool developed for evaluating routing options and other aspects of transporting SNF and HLW, covering rail, truck, barge, and intermodal infrastructure and operations in the continental United States. The verification and validation (V&V) process is intended to independently assess START to provide confidence in the ability of START to accurately provide intended results. The V&V process checks the START tool using a variety of methods, ranging from independent hand calculations to comparison of START performance and results to those of other codes. The V&V activity was conducted independently from the START development team with opportunities to provide feedback and collaborate throughout the process. The V&V analyzed attributes of transportation routes produced by START, including route distance and both population and population density captured within buffer zones around routes. Population in the buffer zone, population density in the buffer zone, and route distance were all identified as crucial outputs of the START code and were subject to V&V tasks. Some of the improvements identified through the V&V process were standardizing the underlying population data in START, changing the projection of the population raster data, and changes to the methodology used for population density to improve its applicability for expected users. This collaboration also led to suggested improvements to some of the underlying shape file segments within START. A formal series of test routes went through the V&V process from START version 3.2.1 following the implementation of the recommended improvements to START. The V&V of the buffer zone population and distance reported in START were achieved by utilizing a custom workflow developed in QGIS. This platform was chosen because it is fully independent of START. The buffer zone population and route distances in START showed excellent agreement to independent V&V test results. Over 200 route test cases were run; in all cases, the percent difference in the population within the buffer zone was less than +/- 5%, and the majority of cases were below +/- 1%. These cases were also duplicated in ArcMap, which is Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) GIS desktop application. The ArcMap results also show good agreement; however, they cannot be considered independent of START because START also uses ESRI software. The V&V tasks are currently addressing population density and estimated radiation dose in START as well as implementing further automation of the V&V process to allow larger suites of test routes to be run more easily and quickly by less experienced GIS users. These improvements to the V&V process will make it a valuable tool for the development team and the stakeholders so that each new iteration of START can easily be checked for quality and consistency. This paper and presentation will describe the V&V process, findings and implications, and ongoing V&V activities.

START, DOE, Transporation, dose, GIS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Tool for the Risk-Informed Management of Critical Mission Resilience

We describe a methodology and tool for the risk-informed management and planning of mission resilience. By mapping concepts of resilience onto the elements of a streamlined risk model we are able to tap the substantial portfolio of established risk concepts to provide rapid insights in the evaluation and high-level screening of prospective resilience enhancement measures. This provides a risk-informed, levelized basis for the comparison of disparate resilience solutions and the means of establishing preferences. The methodology begins with identification of critical missions met by a site, and establishment of the supporting physical assets. Scenarios that would result in failure of these assets are systematically identified. Each scenario comprises three elements: realization of a hazard or threat resulting in loss of resources (the current focus being on power, natural gas, and water) to the asset, failure of measures in place to protect the asset against those losses, and realization of the consequent impacts. These scenarios are quantified in terms of their probabilities of occurrence and the magnitude of the resultant consequences (mission outage time), allowing risk-prioritization to focus resilience enhancement considerations. What-If? analyses are conducted through adjusting elements of the risk calculation to reflect the deployment of prospective resilience measures, by which means the efficacies of each of those measures can be compared using common risk metrics across diverse resilience strategies. This paper will also describe the insights from example applications.

resilience, risk, risk assesment, energy, water↗
DOE OSTI2026

Challenges and Opportunities Associated with Accountable Nuclear Material Needs for Fusion Energy Commercialization

An activity is underway to engage the fusion energy community to understand and plan for management of accountable nuclear materials during the development and commercialization of fusion energy within the scope of DOE Order 410.2. It includes developing an initial assessment of the accountable nuclear materials needed to support fusion development and implementation, understanding the supply/production dynamics of these materials, identifying opportunities to engage with the fusion community to follow technology development efforts that will impact the need for these materials, and initiating engagement with the fusion community to consider DOE Order 410.2 requirements in a full fusion environment.

Robinson, Sharon [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000194204474)↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

U-10Mo Monolithic Fuel Qualification Plan

The Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program’s primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration is to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project, is pursuing a fuel qualification and licensing effort focused on converting high-performance research reactors in the United States from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. The body of this document is focused on defining the activities required for generic qualification of high density, LEU fuel that then allows reactor conversions to proceed for the four high-performance research reactors and the critical assembly that will operate using the U-10Mo monolithic fuel design (see Subsection 1.3): MITR, MURR, NBSR, ATR, and ATRC. Fuel qualification in this report means generic fuel acceptance of the U-10Mo monolithic fuel form by the NRC for use in reactor conversions in the United States, which allows the fuel to be used in subsequent reactor specific licensing requests. The U 10Mo Monolithic Fuel Research, Development, and Qualification Plan utilizes the functions and requirements of the USHPRR Project that was established in the Functions and Requirements Document (F&RD) [1] and expands on these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results that will ensure the requirement has been met. The methods by which data will be collected to show that these requirements have been met are described in this document.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

The Press and Pulse of Climate Change: Extreme Events in the Colorado River Basin

Extremes in temperature and precipitation are associated with damaging floods, prolonged drought, destructive wildfires, agricultural challenges, compromised human health, vulnerable infrastructure, and threatened ecosystems and species. Often, the steady and progressive trends (or presses) of rising global temperature are the central focus in how climate impacts are described. However, observations of extreme weather events (or pulses) increasingly show that the intensity, duration and/or frequency of acute events are also changing, resulting in greater impacts on communities and the environment. Describing how the influence of extreme events may shape water management in the Colorado River Basin in clear terms is critical to sound future planning and efforts to manage risk. Three scenario planning workshops in 2019 and 2020 were held as part of a Colorado River Conversations series, identifying potential impacts from multiple intersecting extreme events. Water managers identified climate-related events of concern in the Colorado River Basin that necessitate greater attention and adaptive responses. To support efforts to include consideration of climate-change-driven extremes in water management and planning, we explore the current state of knowledge at the confluence of long-term climate shifts and extreme weather in the Colorado River Basin related to the events of concern that were identified by scenario planning participants.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Site 200 #1400 Block Area New Trailers Project, Soil Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality Assurance Plan

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) Project Management Office (PMO) is proposing to install a series of modular trailers and install associated underground utilities in the 1400 Block at the Livermore Site. This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) outlines the processes and procedures to collect environmental and geotechnical soil samples from the project area and to send the samples to the appropriate laboratory or laboratories for analysis or testing. The resulting environmental laboratory data will determine whether excavated soils can be reused on the project, or which type of landfill or landfills the soils may be sent for disposal. This SAP has been prepared and is organized to be consistent with LLNL's Soils Screening and Management Plan (SSMP) (LLNL, 2019), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Data Quality Objectives programs (EPA, 2006).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗