Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Minimum risk”

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.

129 records · Page 8

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗

WETO Software Stack Best Practices

Wind energy researchers typically share one key characteristic: a passion for increasing wind energy in the global energy mix. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) supports this mission in a number of ways including allocating funding directly to various aspects of wind energy research through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) via the Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO). While the traditional output of research is academic publication, software development efforts are increasingly a major focus. Software tools in the research environment allow researchers to describe an idea and quickly increase the scope and scale as they study it further. As a product of research, these tools represent a direct pipeline from researcher to industry practitioners since they are the implementation of ideas described in academic publications. Given this vital role in wind energy research and commercial development, the broad research software portfolio supported by WETO must maintain a minimum level of quality to support the wind energy field in the growing transition to renewable energy. This report outlines a series o f best practices to be adopted by all WETO-supported software projects, as well as expectations that the communities interacting with these projects should have of the developers and tools themselves. Wind energy research software has a unique standing in the field of scientific software. The stakeholders are varied with a subset being: (1) DOE EERE leadership, (2) DOE WETO leadership and program managers, (3) National lab leadership, (4) Associated project principle investigators, (5) Research software engineers, (6) Wind energy researchers in academia (including graduate students, post docs, and national lab staff), (7) Industry researchers and practitioners, (8) Commercial software developers, and (9) The general public interested in wind energy. These software are typically the end-user of other generic software libraries, so the funding cycles are often tied to applied research rather than the development of the software itself. Since the developers are also wind energy researchers, these tools are typically designed in a way that closely resembles the application in which they're used. Additionally, the expertise and incentives for the developers have a high variability, and often neither are aligned with software engineering or computer science. Given the unique environment in which wind energy research software is produced and consumed, it is critical for model owners to understand the context of their software. A framework for developing this understanding is to answer the following questions of a given software project: What is it's purpose? What is its role in the field of wind energy? What is the profile of the expected users? For how long will it be relevant? What is the expected impact? These questions allow model owners to identify the appropriate methods for the design, development, and long term maintenance of their software. Additionally, the answer provide context for future planners to understand why particular decisions were made and discern the consequences of changing course. The information is aggregated from experience within WETO-supported software development groups as well as external organizations and efforts to define the craft of research software engineering. These best practices aim to make the collaborative development process efficient and effective while improving the model understanding across stakeholders. Additionally, the general adoption of a common framework for software quality ensures that the end users of WETO software can trust these tools and accurately understand the risks to workflow integration.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Adhesion Capabilities of Permanent Foaming Fixatives

DOE-EM have identified an operational requirement for a fixative that can immobilize and/or encapsulate residual contamination in 3D void volumes (pipes, gloveboxes, waste containers, etc.) during D and D activities. Failure to safely and effectively immobilize residual contamination can: Put workers at risk; Contaminate the public and environment; Drive up costs. Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) polyurethane (PU) foams is one possible solution and is currently being investigated by Savannah River National Lab (SRNL). Adhesion testing will dictate how well PU foams will adhere and immobilize residual contamination onto a substrate. Results can provide a performance criteria for Section 5 of ASTM E3191: Standard Specification for Permanent Foaming Fixatives Used to Mitigate Spread of Radioactive Contamination. Initial mechanical testing showed intumescent rigid PU foams were best in class (tensile, compression, TGA/DSC) Application of intumescent rigid PU foam in pipe scenario with 'contamination' showed excellent adhesion capabilities as long as foam had contact with pipe. The foam, however, was not able to penetrate 'contamination' but created pockets where the contamination interacted with the substrate. Pretreatment options of pipe were considered to produce better immobilization capabilities. Pretreatment options included COTS products like baking spray, rubber cement, and soap. Foam was still able to immobilize on a global sense, but not a local sense. Essentially acted as a mechanical plug. A tensile tester (MTS Criterion Series 43) was utilized to evaluate the tensile adhesion strength of 6 COTS PU foams. ASTM D1623: Tensile and Tensile Adhesion Properties of Rigid Cellular Plastics. Procedures: PU foams were cured between two smooth 2'' x 2'' 304 stainless steel coupons with hinges glued on plates for gripping support. Parameters Used: Pull rate of 0.1 in/min. Calculations: Tensile adhesion strength, elongation, and ImageJ analysis of how PU foam is left on substrate. Outcome: The PU foam with the best adhesion capabilities would be downselected for further evaluation to be used as a permanent foaming fixative. The rigid PU foams had the best adhesion capabilities with the R1 foam having a max load of 236 N. One of the I-R2 samples reached almost 450 N and another sample reached 2500 N before slipping. The other intumescent foam, I-F4, had the most coverage on the stainless steel coupon's surface from the ImageJ results (61.43% surface coverage). The intumescent foam, I-R2, will be the foam of choice for future testing due its fire retardant and adhesion capabilities. Future directions: Conduct the following experiment in a pipe scenario with the down-selected PU foam. Procedures: PU foam will be cured between in a 304 stainless steel pipe (ID: 4'', OD: 4.5'', Height: 4''). Parameters Used: Compression testing results will be referenced to determine if foam's adhesion strength would be greater its compression strength as its being compressed. Calculations: Compression strength, shear stress, total time elapsed. Conduct further adhesion testing with the down-selected PU foam (I-R2) to be treated as a permanent foaming fixative (PFF). Determine the minimum contact the PFF should have with the substrate for adequate results. Evaluate if PFF's adhesion capabilities is time dependent (3.1.5 of ASTM E3911). Subject PFF to seismic stressors addressed in Safety Basis of Interim Operation documents (SBIO) to further evaluate adhesion capabilities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗