Uncertainty-aware inverse modeling for federated scientific discovery across DOE facilities
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Schotthoefer, Steffen [ORNL] (ORCID:00000002156965↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “federal”
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.
Data-Driven Buy Clean: Decarbonization and Beyond
This report was compiled to provide recommendations on the availability of public background data from the U.S. Federal life cycle assessment (LCA) Data Commons to be conformant with the Association for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA) 2022 Product Category Rule (PCR) Open Standard to build technical tools that can assist industry in creating more comparable Type II Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for Federal Buy Clean and sustainability initiatives. The Federal LCA Commons is not only a public data source but also a consistently structured, self-referencing mega-repository for data developed by federal agency experts (in agency repositories) and by academia, nonprofit organizations, and industry (via the US Life Cycle Inventory Database). The Federal LCA Commons Technical Working Group is continuously improving the standardization of data documentation, formatting, and nomenclature to ensure lossless data loading and accurate data representation. This report and appendixes include the following: 1) An introduction to data-driven Buy Clean and decarbonization initiatives at the federal level; 2) The current status and associated challenges with LCA data and EPD standards and comparability; 3) Opportunities for the Federal LCA Commons to support conformance with the ACLCA 2022 PCR Open Standard and provide resources to implement the Federal Sustainability Plan, Buy Clean Program, and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) sustainability goals and objectives. To date, the Federal LCA Commons is the result of coordinated work by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST). The Federal LCA Commons will continue to combine databases from the collaborating agencies while remaining a public resource. There are several initiatives among the collaborating agencies to expand the Federal LCA Commons and dedicated federal funding and resources could accelerate and strengthen these initiatives.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Analysis of Ground Source Heat Pump ECMs: Implemented Under DOE ESPC IDIQ Contract
Several federal performance and decarbonization objectives are driving the U.S. government to transition to net-zero emissions across the federal building portfolio. The overarching purpose of this Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) work is to support federal facilities in accomplishing the administration’s federal building decarbonization goals. Creating awareness of existing geothermal (or ground-source) heat pump (GHP) systems deployed on federal property, implemented using performance contracts and evaluating the energy and environmental impacts of these systems, this work will assist federal facilities in considering inclusion of GHP technology energy conservation measures (ECMs) in future performance contracting project awards. This report summarizes analyses of data from GHP ECMs installed under the DOE ESPC IDIQ contract across various climate areas and geographic locations, agencies, and building use types. Through the analysis of proposed GHP ECMs and understanding key metrics on implemented GHP systems in a variety of applications, FEMP and GTO can further support federal agencies in meeting decarbonization and net-zero building goals by evaluating and incorporating GHP systems into performance contracts and communicate the benefits of this technology.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
National Mandates Won’t Save Us!: How to Design Energy Efficiency Policies that Address Institutional Barriers to Change
There are many national policies aimed at driving an increase in energy efficiency (EE) implementation. But how effective are they? Over the past 20 years, the U.S. government has established five legal authorities mandating federal agencies to prioritize energy-efficient products when purchasing. As the largest single buyer of energy-consuming products, energy-efficient purchasing across the federal sector would result in huge energy savings and emissions reductions. Despite this, our research has found that only ~55% of federal purchases currently meet existing requirements. If national mandates are not enough to ensure that federal agencies are buying efficient products, what is? To answer this question, we surveyed 161 procurement and sustainability staff from 26 different federal agencies. Findings revealed that several institutional factors (i.e., the roles, rules, and tools within an organization) play a key role in determining how likely federal buyers are to prioritize EE. Ensuring that federal agencies comply with existing EE requirements is foundational to achieving a clean energy future. This will require more than national mandates, but also the design of policies that successfully identify and address the institutional factors that must be changed in order to increase EE implementation. This paper presents an overview of the data collection and analysis methods for our study, as well as key survey findings and the insights they offer for overcoming institutional barriers to compliance with existing EE requirements. We conclude by discussing how these strategies can be broadly applied to improve the design of EE policies in the U.S. and beyond.
Morabito, Molly↗
Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Performance Assurance Planning Guide for Utility Energy Service Contracts: 2025 Edition
Administered by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the Utility Program has fostered collaboration among federal agencies and their serving utilities for more than 25 years. The Utility Program supports agencies using Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESCs), a well-developed, effective contracting vehicle that enable the latest approaches to cost-effective energy management at federal sites. Federal agencies have successfully used UESCs to award over 2,000 energy and water efficiency and renewable energy projects, investing approximately $\$$2.8 billion in furthering the Federal Government's efforts to reduce energy intensity. Authorized by 42 U.S. Code section 8256 (10 U.S. Code section 2913 for the Department of Defense), a UESC is a limited-source acquisition between a federal agency and an eligible serving utility for energy management services that generate savings from the implementation of energy- and water -conservation measures (collectively referred to as ECMs), with 42 U.S. Code section 8287 (Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Part 241), providing the term of a UESC, which may extend up to 25 years. Through a UESC, the utility partner assesses designs, and implements the desired ECMs - which can range from lighting retrofits and renewable energy systems, to combined heat and power plants or other technologies and strategies, and may provide financing for the project. The agency may use any combination of appropriations and third-party financing to pay for the project, providing useful flexibility. There is no limit to the project size, big or small, that can be implemented using a UESC. To assist agencies implementing a UESC, FEMP has developed a Utility Energy Service Contract Guide and this companion guidance document to help agencies and their utility partners better understand the best practices for to ensure UESCs continue to perform and generate savings throughout their performance period. These best practices utilize a combination of effective project management, communication, documentation, and a detailed Performance Assurance Plan. This plan is a project specific set of actionable protocols that define important tasks and responsibilities throughout the contract term and reflects the site conditions, complexities, agency capabilities, and operating and maintaining planned ECMs.
29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
Bat Acoustic Survey Data Collected June 2024 in and near Self Sufficiency Parcel-2 (SSP2) on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR)
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) is located in Anderson and Roane Counties, Tennessee. A portion of the ORR, known as Self-Sufficiency Parcel 2 (SSP2) is planned for transfer for private use. The SSP2 Site is approximately 670 acres (Figure 1-1), although the current plan is to only clear and develop a portion of this acreage. Any inquiries about the land transfer and future development should be directed to DOE Oak Ridge Environmental Management, as this is beyond the scope of the Natural Resources Management Team (NRMT). NRMT records bat data for the entire ORR, including acoustic monitoring, mist netting and cave surveys. A few surveys have previously been conducted for small land transfers adjacent to SSP2 (See Appendix A), but not for the entire SSP2 area. Since bats have a large range, it was decided that collecting data while SSP2 was still accessible would be beneficial for the NRMT dataset. Acoustic data was therefore collected within and near SSP2 during the summer of 2024. This write-up is not a Biological Assessment (BA). However, the data and information provided can be used during the creation of a BA and consultations with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in order to comply with federal directives of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U. S. C. 153 et seq.). The SSP2 site was surveyed during summer roosting/maternity season of 2024 using ultrasonic acoustic monitors to record calls from all bat species whose home ranges include the ORR. Special note was taken for presence of Federally listed Endangered and Threatened (T&E) bat species, as well as bat species which are Proposed for Federal listing, Candidate for federal listing, and state listed. Summer roosting season, from May 15 to August 15, is crucial to forest-dwelling T&E bat species for rearing young and foraging. Results of these surveys indicate the presence of three Federally listed bat species: Gray bat (Myotis grisescens--Endangered), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis--Endangered), and Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis--Endangered). Two additional bat species were present on the SSP2 Site: Tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus--Proposed for Federal listing) and Little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus—Candidate for Federal listing).
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Equity Considerations in Siting Consolidated Interim Storage Facilities for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel
Questions of equity and fairness are often raised by representatives from State, Tribal and local governments and members of the public when resolving conflicts over siting of nuclear facilities. However, the two terms are not synonymous: equity can be quantified while fairness is much more subjective. The Department of Energy's (DOE) December 2021 Request for Information sought input on how to site federal facilities for the temporary, consolidated storage of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) using a consent-based approach. It is anticipated that just such questions about equity and fairness associated with the potential emergence of more than one host site may be raised by the twelve groups of university, nonprofit and private sector partners (Consortia) working to support community engagement, inclusively involve stakeholders, build relationships, and develop innovative forms of mutual learning and public capacity to participate in the consent-based siting process for a federal consolidated interim storage facility during the current Planning & Capacity Building stage of the consent-based siting process. In terms of DOE's Integrated Waste Management System (IWMS), sociopolitical equity concepts are a factor in all aspects of IWMS development and operations and will be particularly applicable should two or more host sites become a possibility, either by the emergence of multiple volunteer hosts or by pursuit as a IWMS program strategy. This paper summarizes recent analyses that explore how four equity metrics - number of states, division of the projected SNF total by the year 2083, current population and land area - might be perceived by host communities, states and regions if two, three or four sites for hosting federal consolidated interim storage facilities were to be contemporaneously realized. Existing institutional arrangements, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission regions, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regions and Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compacts, were selected to create hypothetically merged two, three and four-region scenarios to calculate how the four metrics balance out. Projected SNF burden was prioritized with regional contiguity of the consolidated regions a requirement for a functional scenario. The intent was not to promote or suggest any construct as a program objective; the configurations are geopolitical abstractions only to explore potential perceptions of equity. Understanding the possible issues of equity that could arise may benefit program efforts toward achieving a cooperative federalism wherein both the federal and multiple State governments share the goal of manifesting more than one federal consolidated interim storage facility. The main finding is that it is not possible to optimize for all four metrics simultaneously. The analyses demonstrate that trying to create a sense of equity by backfitting a solution to a random population and land distribution will always contain a degree of artificiality.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
INTERSECT Architecture Specification: Use Case Design Patterns (V.0.5)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)’s Self-driven Experiments for Science / Interconnected Science Ecosystem (INTERSECT) architecture project, titled “An Open Federated Architecture for the Laboratory of the Future”, creates an open federated hardware/software architecture for the laboratory of the future using a novel system of systems (SoS) and microservice architecture approach, connecting scientific instruments, robot-controlled laboratories and edge/center computing/data resources to enable autonomous experiments, “self-driving” laboratories, smart manufacturing, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven design, discovery and evaluation. The project describes science use cases as design patterns that identify and abstract the involved hardware/software components and their interactions in terms of control, work and data flow. It creates a SoS architecture of the federated hardware/software ecosystem that clarifies terms, architectural elements, the interactions between them and compliance. It further designs a federated microservice architecture, mapping science use case design patterns to the SoS architecture with loosely coupled microservices, standardized interfaces and multi programming language support. The primary deliverable of this project is an INTERSECT Open Architecture Specification, containing the science use case design pattern catalog, the federated SoS architecture specification and the federated microservice architecture specification. This document represents the science use case design pattern catalog of the INTERSECT Open Architecture Specification.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Oak Ridge National Laboratory FY 2023 Site Sustainability Plan With FY 2022 Performance Data
At the close of each fiscal year, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Sustainability Performance Division (SPD) issues guidance documents and technical resource aids/tools necessary for DOE sites and national laboratories to complete sustainability reporting requirements. SPD is part of the DOE Office of Asset Management. As required by DOE Order 436.1, Departmental Sustainability, “each site will develop and commit to an annual Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) that identifies its respective contribution toward meeting the DOE’s sustainability goals.” SPD collects and compiles information reported by each site to develop an agency-wide Sustainability Report and Implementation Plan, which is used to report DOE sustainability progress to the federal government as required by all major federal agencies. DOE launched a formal Sustainability Office and annual SSP process in 2011. Each year, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), in concert with the Office of Science (SC), provides the resources essential to fulfill its commitment to deliver a complete and accurate SSP report and quality performance data for entry into the DOE Sustainability Dashboard as managed by SPD. The performance data entered by each DOE site are then combined to disclose the progress of each DOE Program Office and are further combined to show comprehensive progress for the agency. The Office of Asset Management provides assistance to program offices in sustaining their missions, freeing up resources by reducing waste, avoiding excess expenditure on utilities, maximizing productivity, and improving the efficiency of facilities and processes. By focusing on mission needs, programs and associated DOE sites can help the agency meet its sustainability goals, as outlined in federal statutory and regulatory requirements. In FY 2022, the SSP guidance was updated to capture requirements from Executive Order (EO) 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, the Energy Act of 2020 (EAct 20), actions outlined in DOE’s Climate Adaptation & Resilience Plan and Sustainability Plan, and EO 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. Updates in SSP guidance help to minimize and streamline reporting while simultaneously addressing updated federal requirements. Per DOE, each SSP report should provide an overview of the site’s planned actions, as well as an overview of efforts and accomplishments during the reporting period. SPD collects and compiles information reported by each site to develop DOE’s Annual Sustainability Report, Climate Adaptation & Resilience Plan, and Annual Energy Management Report to Congress. The agency goal has been to lower the reporting burden for sites and increase and improve the consistency of information available to decision makers, allowing them to better identify projects and potential for increased efficiency, as well as to reduce waste, lower emissions, and enhance operational resilience. Sites may elect to produce a more polished publication for their leadership and stakeholders, but this step is no longer required. The ORNL SSP narrative report (this document) and the reporting of DOE SPD Sustainability Dashboard performance data is a collaborative effort of approximately 30 subject matter experts (SMEs) from ORNL facility management and research divisions. Annually, these associates come together to provide a report that can be used by DOE to demonstrate continued agency progress in energy efficiency and sustainable federal operations.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Case Studies in Leveraging Performance Contracts for Resilience Projects
The resilience of federal facilities has become increasingly important among lawmakers, agency leadership, and the American public as high impact natural hazards occur more frequently over time. Resilience is broadly defined as the ability of a federal facility to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions to maintain critical functions. The Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) was codified to facilitate the strengthening of federal energy and water efficiency and resilience. Performance contracting is one of the mechanisms through which federal agencies can finance projects at their facilities, but resilience improvement measures do not always result in utility cost savings, which are the primary driver behind performance contracts. This report provides example cases where performance contracts, specifically energy savings performance contracts (ESPC) or utility energy service contracts (UESCs), were used to implement a resilience measure at a federal facility.
99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Building a Collaborative Relationship between Contractor and Oversight at SRPPF
The success of Department of Energy (DOE) projects is dependent on a functional, healthy, and collaborative relationship between the contractor and the federal oversight. A healthy relationship marked by a collaborative mindset between these two groups, can facilitate better operational safety, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance. This paper will explore aspects of such a relationship, the roles and responsibilities of the contractor and federal oversight, the present and historical relationships in the DOE complex, and best practices considered by the contractor and federal oversight used at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Due to the current design phase of the SRPPF, the contractor and federal oversight have a unique opportunity to begin establishing a strong relationship early in the project’s life. As a result of this dynamic, the two groups have already demonstrated their ability to successfully respond to ongoing design issues. In general, a strong criticality safety program is beginning to mature for the SRPPF alongside a developing criticality safety federal oversight group. This paper will discuss the various factors that have brought about this collaborative relationship. Lastly, a case study will be incorporated into this paper demonstrating the ability of the SRPPF contractor and federal oversight to overcome challenges relating to the SRPPF project. This case study may guide groups around the DOE Complex to create better, more functional relationships between the two parties. The case study will provide a detailed description of the issue and parties involved, highlight the factors that allowed the group to overcome the challenge via effective collaboration, and the outcome of the event. Increasing collaboration may benefit the complex, as a whole, in order to meet the mission demands of the DOE.
collaboration↗
Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada
Geothermal project development in the United States may be subject to numerous permits, authorizations, and other regulatory requirements at the federal, state, and local level, which are necessary to address potential environmental and resource impacts at geothermal project sites. This report presents the findings of our study, including an analysis of federal, state, and local geothermal regulatory and permitting processes, case studies analyzing site-specific attributes that may impact project development at four selected geothermal project sites, an analysis of cost and timeline implications for geothermal project development, and the results of a qualitative study focused on inter-agency coordination and collaboration efforts between federal, state, and/or local agencies for geothermal projects located in California and Nevada. Our analysis found that development timelines may be impacted by multiple federal and state environmental review processes and duplicative permitting requirements as well as coordination efforts between numerous federal, state, and local agencies involved in issuing authorizations and permits necessary for project development. In addition, projects in California and Nevada may face site-specific environmental challenges due to the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., biological species and species habitat, cultural resources) that may result in project construction delays. Our study results also indicate that protracted geothermal development timelines caused by delays in acquiring necessary permits and environmental reviews may result in loss of generated electricity revenue and additional financing costs, which may increase economic uncertainty associated with project development. Through our qualitative analysis, we found that utilization of best practices, including tiering to existing environmental review documents and developing memoranda of understanding, which clearly delineate agency roles and responsibilities may reduce overall project timelines, costs, and uncertainties associated with geothermal project development in California and Nevada.
15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
INTERSECT Architecture Specification: Microservice Architecture (V.0.5)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)’s Self-driven Experiments for Science / Interconnected Science Ecosystem (INTERSECT) architecture project, titled “An Open Federated Architecture for the Laboratory of the Future”, creates an open federated hardware/software architecture for the laboratory of the future using a novel system of systems (SoS) and microservice architecture approach, connecting scientific instruments, robot-controlled laboratories and edge/center computing/data resources to enable autonomous experiments, “self-driving” laboratories, smart manufacturing, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven design, discovery and evaluation. The project describes science use cases as design patterns that identify and abstract the involved hardware/software components and their interactions in terms of control, work and data flow. It creates a SoS architecture of the federated hardware/software ecosystem that clarifies terms, architectural elements, the interactions between them and compliance. It further designs a federated microservice architecture, mapping science use case design patterns to the SoS architecture with loosely coupled microservices, standardized interfaces and multi programming language support. The primary deliverable of this project is an INTERSECT Open Architecture Specification, containing the science use case design pattern catalog, the federated SoS architecture specification and the microservice architecture specification. This document represents the microservice architecture specification of the INTERSECT Open Architecture Specification.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
INTERSECT Architecture Specification: Microservice Architecture (V.0.9)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)’s Self-driven Experiments for Science / Interconnected Science Ecosystem (INTERSECT) architecture project, titled “An Open Federated Architecture for the Laboratory of the Future”, creates an open federated hardware/software architecture for the laboratory of the future using a novel system of systems (SoS) and microservice architecture approach, connecting scientific instruments, robot-controlled laboratories and edge/center computing/data resources to enable autonomous experiments, “self-driving” laboratories, smart manufacturing, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven design, discovery and evaluation. The project describes science use cases as design patterns that identify and abstract the involved hardware/software components and their interactions in terms of control, work and data flow. It creates a SoS architecture of the federated hardware/software ecosystem that clarifies terms, architectural elements, the interactions between them and compliance. It further designs a federated microservice architecture, mapping science use case design patterns to the SoS architecture with loosely coupled microservices, standardized interfaces and multi programming language support. The primary deliverable of this project is an INTERSECT Open Architecture Specification, containing the science use case design pattern catalog, the federated SoS architecture specification and the microservice architecture specification. This document represents the microservice architecture specification of the INTERSECT Open Architecture Specification.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
FRMAC Laboratory Analysis Manual Volume 1, Revision 0
The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) is an operational center, available on request by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to nuclear and radiological incidents as described in the National Response Framework (NRF). Under the Federal Interagency Operational Plan for Response and Recovery’s Nuclear/Radiological Annex, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has the responsibility to maintain the operational readiness of the FRMAC during the emergency phase of an event. FRMAC is initially established and managed by the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) and serves as an interagency operations center with representatives from various federal, state, and local radiological response organizations. The purpose of the FRMAC is to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) in their mission to protect the health and well-being of their citizens with: • Verified radiation measurements. • Interpretations of radiation distributions based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or local Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs). • Characterization of overall radiological conditions. Once a declaration to respond to a radiological emergency has been made, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters will coordinate the response in consultation with the cognizant NNSA Regional Coordinating Office (RCO). Each of the eight RCOs maintain a 24-hour response capability for radiological emergencies that may occur in states served by its region. When a FRMAC is established, it operates under the parameters of the Incident Command System (ICS), as defined in the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) construct. The Consequence Management Home Team (CMHT) will be activated immediately during normal business hours (Pacific Time Zone), and within two hours otherwise. The Consequence Management Response Team (CMRT) is prepared for deployment within six hours after activation. Along with the assets, FRMAC provides an operational framework for coordinating of all federal off-site radiological monitoring and assessment activities during a response to a radiological emergency to support the coordinating agency and SLTT governments. Potential radiological emergencies that fall within FRMAC vary widely in terms of the area affected, the nature of the contamination, and the scope of the government’s response. Detonation of a nuclear device, accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant, and a terrorist threat are just a few of the many possible scenarios FRMAC must be prepared to address. Through all this, supporting the state, local, and tribal organizations in the protection of the public remains the primary goal of the federal response.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures: Guidance Designed for Federal Agencies (hereafter referred to as “this report”) provides a technical framework for federal agencies to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for water efficiency projects in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 8253. This report leverages insights from the 2023 report, PNNL-34006, Water and Wastewater Annual Price Escalation Rates for Selected Cities Across the United States: 2023 Edition (Unger et al. 2023). The primary objective of this report is to provide a framework to assist federal agencies with evaluating the full economic impact of water efficiency projects by assessing both initial investments and long-term operational benefits. An LCCA can provide a comprehensive view of all costs associated with a water efficiency project, including initial investment, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M), and eventual disposal or replacement, ensuring the most cost-effective solution is selected. The LCCA methodology outlined in this report enables users to compare base case scenarios with potential alternatives using a standardized present value approach. It incorporates key cost components such as energy, water and wastewater, installation, O&M, and equipment replacement. Additionally, the framework introduces relevant evaluation metrics, such as the net savings and the savings-to-investment ratio, to ensure that water efficiency measures are economically justified over the lifespan of the project. To support practical application, this report also describes various water efficiency strategies that may be analyzed using an LCCA, including plumbing retrofits, irrigation upgrades, alternative water use, and cooling system improvements. By applying this framework, federal agencies can ensure compliance with regulatory mandates while maximizing the return on investment and contributing to resilient water management practices. The information provided in this report is aligned with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) life-cycle cost (LCC) methodology, as conveyed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 (Kneifel and Webb 2022). This report is intended to provide relatively high-level guidance, acting as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, that resource.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
ePROJECT BUILDER: PROMOTING WIDER ADOPTION OF ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS THROUGH STANDARDIZATION AND TRANSPARENCY
The United States Federal Government has been conducting guaranteed savings energy savings performance contracts for over 20 years and now relies on ESPC for the majority of its energy efficiency work. Along with a related financed project type, these deals resulted in $4.2 billion of project investment in the five years ending in 2016, a pace that has even accelerated since. Measurement and verification (M&V) on the projects is the key to assuring savings realization and persistence. Perceived as a weakness or burdensome added cost in the early years of the program, M&V has become a strength. All energy conservation measures (ECMs) have some form of measurement – defined as a measured baseline establishment followed by at least one measurement of the main energy-saving parameter taken in the performance period for each ECM. The government’s in-house energy consulting office, the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), now recommends measurement of these “Option A” M&V ECMs throughout the contract term, usually annually. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of projects are now characterized by more ambitious M&V, including Option B (all parameter measurement) for most generation (including renewable) and some efficiency measures, and more frequent Option C (whole facility utility bill analysis) for “deep retrofit” projects with multiple, interactive ECMs. Coincident with this progress in M&V has been a much greater embracing of ESPC by the federal agencies, resulting in the enormous rate of projects now executed. This paper traces the evolution of M&V in federal ESPC and argues that the heightened credibility of the savings has contributed significantly to the procurement vehicle’s long-term viability. This focus on savings integrity via M&V has been learned over two decades for U.S. federal ESPC, but countries with developing ESPC markets would be wise to emphasize it as their markets emerge, allowing them to avoid some of the “growing pains” experienced in the U.S.
Earni, Shankar↗