SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This is a guidance document on EPAct Section 707 emergency repair and restoration vehicle exclusions under the US DOE's Energy Policy Act (EPAct).
Section 707 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) amended section 301(9)(E) of EPAct 1992 by adding to the list of vehicles excluded from the definition of "fleet" a new subcategory of emergency motor vehicles, i.e., "vehicles directly used in the emergency repair of transmission lines and in the restoration of electricity service following power outages, as determined by the Secretary." Like other excluded vehicles, these light-duty vehicles (LDVs) do not count (1) when determining whether a fleet is covered under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program (Program), and (2) for fleets that are covered under the Program, when calculating annual alternative fuel vehicle (AFV)-acquisition requirements. If AFV models of excluded vehicles are acquired, however, a fleet may count them toward their acquisition requirement by including them in the calculation of the number of AFVs acquired. Exclusion Process.
This Commissioning Guidance for Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) is DOE’s official guidance for ordering agencies under the current DOE ESPC IDIQ contract. This guidance document explains how commissioning of energy conservation measures (ECMs) and water conservation measures (WCMs) is incorporated into the ESPC process, roles and responsibilities in project commissioning, and key elements of commissioning. This document updates the previous version, released in 2015. This guidance can also be used as applicable in the development of ESPC ENABLE and UESC performance assurance plans.
The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation maintains the Electric Vehicle Charging Analytics and Reporting Tool (EV-ChART), which provides a centralized hub for submitting electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure data directed by the Federal Highway Administration (23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c)). EV-ChART provides a streamlined data submission process and an integrated set of analytic tools, connects to other data sources, and empowers data sharing and access across stakeholders, including the public. Any data shared publicly will be aggregated and anonymized to stay in accordance with 23 CFR 680. This EV-ChART Data Format and Preparation Guidance provides a comprehensive overview of the data reporting requirements as authorized under 23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c)). The guidance is intended to be used alongside the EV-ChART Data Input Template, which defines the tabular data structure that these data submissions must follow. Per 23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c), the annual and quarterly data submissions are required of all National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program projects, as well as projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded with funds made available under Title 23, United States Code, including any EV charging infrastructure project funded with federal funds that is treated as a project on a federal-aid highway. One-time data submissions are required of both the NEVI Formula Program projects and grants awarded under 23 U.S.C. 151(f) for projects that are for EV charging stations located along and designed to serve the users of designated Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs). Other information and data required in 23 CFR 680, such as 23 CFR 680.112(d), 23 CFR 680.116(c), and 23 CFR 680.106(a), are not discussed in this guidance.
Given the importance of the URC and HRC thresholds as part of a physical security program that is designed to protect against radiological sabotage, it is important to provide guidance on how to assign those thresholds consistent with a State’s level of risk tolerance. Without such guidance, most States will be challenged to establish appropriate thresholds or appropriately establish regulations. This document provides guidance on establishing dose limits and where they apply, as well as the timeframe for which the dose limits should be measured. For dose limits, it offers examples of established thresholds based on safety and emergency response thresholds. Whereas, for timeframes, a process to identify possible timeframes is offered.
This document provides additional guidance and changes to the Carbon Dioxide Utilization Life Cycle Analysis Guidance for the U.S. DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Version 2.0 to make it more applicable to taxpayers preparing life cycle analyses for the 45Q tax credit. This update adds clarity to existing text and includes information on new tools and data available.
As part of efforts to prepare for potential and ongoing safety reviews for licensing of advanced non-light-water reactor fuel cycles, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) tasked Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to prepare an assessment on the state of knowledge of potential chemical processes at fuel cycle facilities supporting the front end of these fuel cycles, and to assess the associated regulatory guidance. This report provides a technical assessment of chemical process safety considerations to support NRC licensing reviews of fabrication processes for tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) based, metallic-based, and salt-based fuels. The assessments involved collecting publicly available information on the fuel fabrication processes to (i) identify the operational process steps, characteristics and chemicals involved, (ii) identify the physical safety considerations and health safety considerations during licensing reviews of the various process steps, and (iii) collect information to support assessments of severity of accidents and potential mitigative measures to be implemented. The assessment provides a foundational basis on chemical process safety considerations for advanced fuel fabrication activities, although it is recognized that licensing reviews may necessitate design-specific considerations. The specific conditions under which chemical hazards emerge will require process-specific considerations, highlighting the importance of process-informed interpretation. The assessment also determined that exposure guidelines and limits to assess the consequences of acute exposures are limited for some chemicals, although alternative limits and supplementary information from databases or safety data sheets provide sufficient information to evaluate consequences of acute exposures. In addition, it was identified that metallic and salt fuel fabrication processes may involve beryllium, which is an exposure hazard. The regulatory framework for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities, per 10 CFR Part 70 Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, is deemed robust and flexible to address the chemical safety considerations in this report. A review was conducted on various regulatory guidance and technical basis documents. This included reviewing NUREG-1520, Revision 2, Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications – Final Report and the process descriptions in Appendix A of NUREG/CR-6410, Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facility Accident Analysis Handbook, to address advanced fuel types. As new fuels will involve process-specific chemical uses, process-specific considerations are provided in this report. Additionally, it is noted that the U.S. Department of Energy protective action criteria database includes Temporary Emergency Exposure Limits (TEELs) for process-specific chemicals. This report provides technical information to support chemical safety assessments of new advanced fuel cycle facilities and identifies technical and safety information to support licensing reviews. No regulatory barriers were identified for the licensing of advanced fuel cycle facilities.
This data package provides templates and supporting documentation developed by the River Corridor Science Focus Area (RC-SFA; https://www.pnnl.gov/projects/river-corridor) to communicate its approach to managing and publishing AI-ready data. The package is intended to help data users and data producers understand the structures, metadata practices, and quality-control approaches that support consistent, reusable, and machine-actionable data products across RC-SFA studies. Rather than focusing on a single experimental dataset, this package documents the data management framework used to make RC-SFA data easier to find, ingest, navigate, and interpret. The materials in this package reflect RC-SFA practices for standardized data package organization, including the use of a human- and machine-readable README, file-level metadata, data dictionaries, descriptive file naming, method identifiers, and automated and review-based quality assurance procedures. Together, these components illustrate how RC-SFA extends FAIR data principles toward AI-readiness by prioritizing deep metadata, consistency across data packages, and support for informed downstream reuse by both humans and computational tools. This dataset is comprised of (1) readme; (2) presentation slides with an overview of RC-SFA approach and guidance; (3) document of RC-SFA best practices; (4) data dictionary (dd); (5) file level metadata (flmd); and a subfolder containing templates for dd and flmd. All files are .csv and .pdf. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About.
One compelling vision of the future of materials discovery and design involves the use of machine learning (ML) models to predict materials properties and then rapidly find materials tailored for specific applications. However, realizing this vision requires both providing detailed uncertainty quantification (model prediction errors and domain of applicability) and making models readily usable. At present, it is common practice in the community to assess ML model performance only in terms of prediction accuracy (e.g. mean absolute error), while neglecting detailed uncertainty quantification and robust model accessibility and usability. Here, we demonstrate a practical method for realizing both uncertainty and accessibility features with a large set of models. We develop random forest ML models for 33 materials properties spanning an array of data sources (computational and experimental) and property types (electrical, mechanical, thermodynamic, etc). All models have calibrated ensemble error bars to quantify prediction uncertainty and domain of applicability guidance enabled by kernel-density-estimate-based feature distance measures. All data and models are publicly hosted on the Garden-AI infrastructure, which provides an easy-to-use, persistent interface for model dissemination that permits models to be invoked with only a few lines of Python code. We demonstrate the power of this approach by using our models to conduct a fully ML-based materials discovery exercise to search for new stable, highly active perovskite oxide catalyst materials.
Diffusion models have emerged as powerful priors for solving inverse problems in computed tomography (CT). In certain applications, such as neutron CT, it can be expensive to collect large amounts of measurements even for a single scan leading to sparse data sets from which it is challenging to obtain high quality reconstructions even with diffusion models. One strategy to mitigate this challenge is to leverage a complementary, easily available imaging modality; however, such approaches typically require retraining the diffusion model with large datasets. In this work, we propose incorporating an additional modality without retraining the diffusion prior, enabling accelerated imaging of costly modalities. We further examine the impact of imperfect side modalities on cross-modal guidance. Our method is evaluated on sparse-view neutron computed tomography, where reconstruction quality is substantially improved by incorporating X-ray computed tomography of the same samples.
Bioenergy is a critical element in many national and international climate change mitigation efforts, including as a carbon dioxide removal strategy combined with the capture and durable geological storage of flue gas emissions (BECCS). However, divergent results on the effectiveness of bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure are reported in the scientific literature. Climate impacts of bioenergy depend on case-specific factors, primarily biophysical features of the biomass production system, and the design and efficiency of conversion and capture processes. Estimates of climate impacts are also strongly affected by methodological choices and assumptions, and much of the divergence between studies derives from differences in the assumed alternate use of the land or feedstock, the alternate energy source and the system boundaries applied. We present a methodology to support robust estimates of the climate change effects of bioenergy systems, updating the standard methodology developed by the International Energy Agency's Technology Collaboration Program on Bioenergy. We provide guidance on the key choices including the reference land use and energy system that bioenergy is assumed to displace, spatial and temporal system boundaries, co-product handling, climate forcers considered, metrics applied and time horizon of impact assessment. Researchers should consider the whole bioenergy system including all life cycle stages, and choose system boundaries, reference systems and treatment of co-products that are consistent with the intended application of the results. The assessment should be normalised to a functional unit that can be compared with other systems delivering an equivalent quantity of the same function. All significant climate forcers should be included, and climate effects should be quantified using appropriate impact assessment methods that distinguish the impact of time. Consistency in methodology and interpretation will facilitate comparison between studies of different bioenergy systems.
Recognizing the scale of this industry challenge, the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Grid Deployment Office (GDO) and Cybersecurity Energy Security & Emergency Response office have launched a multi-year BESS supply chain security initiative to identify consequence-driven approaches to addressing BESS supply chain security and provide resources to support prioritization of supply chain security efforts associated with the procurement of BESS equipment and services. This guide is one element of the supporting resources to be provided and sets forth a framework and guidance for procurement bidding, selection, risk analysis, and agreements stakeholders can implement to mitigate cybersecurity risks across the entirety of battery system component ecosystem, including the interconnected software and hardware required for control and monitoring BESSs.
The Eastern Interconnection Situational Awareness Monitoring System (ESAMS) project demonstrated the feasibility of aggregating synchrophasor measurements from across an interconnection, analyzing them, and providing real-time wide-area situational awareness to system operators who may have excellent visibility within their footprint but lack an interconnection-wide view. An application within ESAMS that has garnered industry interest involves detecting forced oscillations visible across multiple areas, identifying the region where the oscillation originated from, quantifying the uncertainty in source localization results, and notifying users in real-time if the detected oscillation amplitudes cross a specified threshold. It is expected that system operators will utilize their internal SCADA/EMS/synchrophasor systems in conjunction with information provided by ESAMS to take effective mitigation actions if forced oscillation notifications are received. This report provides some general guidance on how the ESAMS information can be used for source localization and coordination among multiple reliability coordinators; and also identifies potential enhancements to ESAMS notifications for improved interpretability.
Federal Guidance Report No. 15 (FGR 15), External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil, published in 2019 and referred to below as FGR 2019, provides age-specific effective dose rate coefficients for reference persons externally exposed to each of 1252 radionuclides homogenously distributed in environmental media. Soon after completion of FGR 2019, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published a similar report (ICRP Publication 144, 2020) addressing the same radionuclides and many of the external exposure scenarios addressed in FGR 2019. In 2023 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) published a review of dose coefficients in FGR 2019, concluding that “The external effective dose from beta radiation is not appropriately accounted for in FGR 15 for both low- and high-energy beta emitters in air, in soil, and on soil surfaces.” That conclusion was based largely on comparisons of dose coefficients in FGR 2019 with values in ICRP Publication 144 but also on consideration of some unexpected patterns of equivalent dose rate coefficients across tissues and of effective dose rate coefficients across different soil depths, for a selected set of low-energy beta emitters. In response to the ANL report, the Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge (CRPK) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed an extensive reexamination of the methods and published values of FGR 2019. CRPK found that coding errors had resulted in inaccurate estimates, primarily overestimates, in many of the dose coefficients tabulated in FGR 2019 but that many of the differences between results in FGR 2019 and ICRP Publication 144 could be traced to differences in methodology. CRPK has corrected all errors in FGR 2019 associated with the coding errors and has taken the opportunity to improve a major portion of the remaining dose coefficients in FGR 2019, primarily through additional Monte Carlo calculations resulting in improved statistics for tissue equivalent dose rate coefficients for exposure to monoenergetic sources. This has eliminated the need for extrapolation of results from high and medium energies to low energies, as was done in FGR 2019. In addition, inconsistencies in the methodology identified in the review, such as computational representation of the adult female, were eliminated. The revised effective dose rate coefficients are consistent with values in ICRP Publication 144 except for differences in values clearly arising from differences in methodology; and differences in values for a relatively small set of very low-energy radionuclides with highly uncertain dose coefficients regardless of methodology.
This final technical report summarizes research, case studies, and resources developed from 2020–2025 on prefabricated construction and remote virtual inspections. It documents key findings on benefits, challenges, and best practices, highlights examples from multiple states, and provides guidance to support wider adoption of these innovations in the construction sector.
With the rapid development of advanced reactors and numerous companies requesting pre-application engagements with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), there is need for the NRC to best prepare themselves for new challenges presented by advanced technologies. One specific reactor type of interest is the molten salt reactor (MSR) that uses liquid salt as the fuel for the reactor. Liquid salt fuel reactors have specific challenges with regards to performing material control and accounting (MC&A). The challenges result from the fuel form being a continuous fissile material form rather than discrete units like is found with fuel assemblies in traditional light water reactors (LWRs). The goal of this document is to provide the NRC with guidance on the different approaches and technologies that may be proposed by reactor designers to address these problems to prepare staff for regulatory reviews.
Building sciences and technology directly impact human health, productivity, and resource consumption (e.g., energy and critical minerals). Addressing emerging challenges in this field requires skilled building science professionals. JUMP into STEM sought to inspire the next generation of building scientists through a real-world competition that introduced participants to the field and connected them with national laboratory and industry professionals. This report highlights select challenges from past competitions which are tailored for academic and industry professionals who aim to develop or recruit multidisciplinary talent. It also includes additional guidance to support the effective replication of these challenges.
This is a guidance document of how to request an exemption from Standard Compliance (SC) under the US DOE's Energy Policy Act (EPAct).