Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Audit Report”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Toward the Neutrino Discovery Platform: An Auditable, Uncertainty-Bearing Toolchain for MINERvA Open-Data Cross-Section Analysis

The Neutrino Discovery Platform (NDP) aims to accelerate DUNE-era science by making the neutrino program's existing datasets analyzable through fast, reproducible, and auditable workflows. We report a working version of two of its layers, data curation and agentic orchestration, built and tested end to end on MINERvA open data. The guiding lesson throughout is that a cross section is a measurement, and not just a plotted shape, only if it carries a defensible systematic-uncertainty budget, a trustworthy unfolding, and a reproducible record. Using a single medium-energy playlist pair from the MINERvA open-data release (about $2.05\times10^{17}$ protons on target of data), we first reproduced the shapes of two published charged-current inclusive $\nu_\mu$ measurements through a complete extraction ladder: selection, background subtraction, D'Agostini unfolding, efficiency correction, and flux normalization. These shape-level reproductions ran and tracked the published results, but they lacked the systematic-uncertainty machinery that defines a MINERvA cross section. To supply it, we vendored and built the MINERvA Analysis Toolkit and developed a many-universe systematic-uncertainty tool that produces a portable covariance artifact, a parallel event-loop runner, and a per-run auditability harness. Validated against a published covariance release, the toolchain reproduces the released statistical, flux, and muon-energy-scale terms and shows that they account for roughly 63\% of the total variance, with the remainder unreleased. Using this same infrastructure, we then performed a measurement of our own design, the hadronic recoil-energy distribution of low-energy ($E_\nu<2.5$~GeV) charged-current inclusive events, and found data/simulation shape agreement of $\chi^2/\mathrm{ndf}=1.26$. Together these results show that the platform supports original physics and not only reproductions.

Breaux, Auto [Tulane U. (main)]↗
DOE OSTI2021

Weatherization Assistant NEAT/MHEA

The software provides a measure selection technique indicating cost effective retrofit activities that can be applied to a home using a standard Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR). Users must provide an input file describing the characteristics of the home to be evaluated. The software takes the input data provided and calculates energy savings and cost savings predicted for a standard set of measures given the input parameters. The Weatherization Assistant computes estimates of pre-retrofit whole building space heating and cooling energy consumptions based on the house description data supplied by the user. The consumptions are computed using a monthly heating and cooling variable base degree-day method by algorithms similar to those developed for the CIRA program [LBL, 1982]. The building consumptions are needed in computing the energy savings from measures affecting the efficiencies of the heating and cooling equipment. Weatherization Assistant then computes the energy savings and costs for each individual measure applicable to the building described as if it were the only measure installed in the house. From these energy savings, a discounted dollar savings over the life of each measure is computed. The ratio of this dollar savings to the cost of installing the measure, the "savings-to-investment ratio" (SIR), is used in an initial ranking of the measures' effectiveness. The "interacted" savings and SIR of measures are then determined assuming the measures are added to the house collectively, in order of their ranking, e.g., the second ranked measure is installed in the house initially described by the user after having been modified by the first ranked measure. If this second-ranked measure's updated SIR is greater than a user-defined limit, the measure is left implemented, else it is removed so that the next measure's effectiveness is not dependent on it. The choice between two mutually exclusive measures (such as different levels of insulation) is made on the basis of their "net present value" (NPV), the difference of life-time savings and installation cost, rather than their SIR. This has been shown to be the more correct criterion on which to base the selection between two measures, both of which cannot be installed. The audit computes and reports to the user the energy savings, discounted dollar savings, installation cost, and SIR for each measure considered cost-effective. For those with SIR greater than the user-designated cutoff, a materials list gives the material name, type, and quantity required for installation of the measure. Weatherization Assistant permits entry of pre-retrofit billing data for gas or electrically heated homes or homes with electric air-conditioning. The user may then make the decision to have the savings of the measures adjusted to reflect the difference in billed consumption and that predicted by the program.

Gettings, Michael↗
NASA NTRS2021

Modernizing NASA’s Space Flight Safety and Mission Success (S&MS) Assurance Framework In Line With Evolving Acquisition Strategies and Systems Engineering Practices

This paper presents the objectives-driven, case-based safety and mission success (S&MS) assurance framework being developed by the NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), including its motivations and its implementation via a S&MS Assurance Standard that is under development, supplemented by supporting standards including an S&MS Analysis Management Standard that is also under development. A need to evolve NASA’s S&MS assurance framework has emerged in recent years, resulting from the need to accommodate new acquisition models; the need to accommodate evolving systems engineering (SE) practices; the need to stipulate acceptable levels of S&MS risk; the need for improved integration of S&MS into SE; and the need for clearer risk acceptance accountability. The objectives-driven, case-based S&MS assurance framework proposed here is responsive to that need. Its key features include: • The establishment, by NASA Acquirers, of fundamental S&MS performance objectives that define limits of acceptability for the likelihoods that mission technical objectives will be accomplished and that people, assets, and environments put at risk by the mission will not be adversely affected; • The development and approval of Providers’ S&MS plans for meeting Acquirers’ S&MS performance objectives, including commitments to support Acquirer audit, investigation, and reporting needs; • The development, by Providers, of S&MS assurance cases that argue, supported by evidence, that the Provider has met, or is on track to meeting, the fundamental S&MS objectives; • The evaluation, throughout the program/project life cycle, of Provider S&MS assurance cases as the primary S&MS-related technical basis for Acquirer risk acceptance and the granting to the Provider of authority to proceed through the program/project life cycle. This proposed S&MS assurance framework is notable for its lack of prescription of traditional S&MS requirements and strategies such as defined failure tolerances, margins, or analysis requirements. Instead, Providers are given latitude to propose their own strategies for meeting the fundamental S&MS performance objectives, subject to independent review and Acquirer approval. The result is a framework for S&MS assurance that is at once both rigorous and flexible.

Assurance Case↗
DOE OSTI2024

Clean Energy to Communities: Technical Assistance for Region Five, MN

The Region Five Development Commission (“R5DC”) serves five counties in Minnesota, USA and received an Energizing Rural Communities Prize through the U.S. Department of Energy. Currently, R5DC is piloting projects in the City of Motley, for which two energy audits have been conducted. R5DC is seeking input regarding which options to pursue based on these two audits, as well a framework for future audits to be as effective and helpful as possible. This report defines a framework for future audits for R5DC, by providing an overview of the requirements for different levels of audits and identifying available resources for conducting energy audits.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

2001-2002 Southern California Regional Travel Survey

The 2001-2002 Southern California Regional Travel Survey collected data on household characteristics and travel behavior to update regional travel demand models. It covered six counties including Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The Southern California Association of Governments contracted with NuStats Partners to conduct the survey following the 2000 decennial census. Survey data collection occurred in 2001 and 2002 using computer-assisted telephone interviewing and travel diaries. Roughly 17,000 households completed the survey. An additional global positioning system (GPS) sample was taken for the purpose of auditing the self-reported diaries. Battelle provided data collection support for the GPS sample.

1Hz data↗
NASA NTRS1976

A distributed data base management capability for the deep space network

The Configuration Control and Audit Assembly (CCA) is reported that has been designed to provide a distributed data base management capability for the DSN. The CCA utilizes capabilities provided by the DSN standard minicomputer and the DSN standard nonreal time high level management oriented programming language, MBASIC. The characteristics of the CCA for the first phase of implementation are described.

Bryan, A. I.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exposing Hidden Parts of the SE Process: MBSE Patterns and Tools for Tracking and Traceability

An interesting benefit of applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is that the rigor and coordination intrinsic to MBSE forces us to apply Systems Engineering to our own traditional activities, processes, and products, which results in richer, more expressive models, more powerful reasoning, and a clearer and more effective Systems Engineering (SE) process. Our MBSE frameworks and languages contain semantic richness sufficient to describe our systems at any particular point in time, often with an emphasis on the description of the system at major milestones. This is unarguably a real asset. However, when we apply MBSE in service of missions that are in development, rapidly evolving, of a larger scale, and where interpersonal communication is a critical part of the design process, we discover that our frameworks and languages are still not quite rich enough to enable us to ask the kinds of questions and get the kinds of answers we want in order to address the concerns of day to day work. This paper will discuss some patterns and tools we have developed to help address some of the not-always-explicit SE concerns that we have identified through our MBSE work. Particularly, this paper will discuss flexible yet practical methods for defining and capturing maturity, workflow, and agreement traceability within our system models, extensible ways to perform and track model audits, and ways to report and interact with this knowledge in the context of MBSE applied to support NASA’s Europa Project.

Jackson, Maddalena↗
NASA NTRS2016

Exposing Hidden Parts of the SE Process: MBSE Patterns and Tools for Tracking and Traceability

An interesting benefit of applying Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) is that the rigor and coordination intrinsic to MBSE forces us to apply Systems Engineering to our own traditional activities, processes, and products, which results in richer, more expressive models, more powerful reasoning, and a clearer and more effective Systems Engineering (SE) process. Our MBSE frameworks and languages contain semantic richness sufficient to describe our systems at any particular point in time, often with an emphasis on the description of the system at major milestones. This is unarguably a real asset. However, when we apply MBSE in service of missions that are in development, rapidly evolving, of a larger scale, and where interpersonal communication is a critical part of the design process, we discover that our frameworks and languages are still not quite rich enough to enable us to ask the kinds of questions and get the kinds of answers we want in order to address the concerns of day to day work. This paper will discuss some patterns and tools we have developed to help address some of the not-always-explicit SE concerns that we have identified through our MBSE work. Particularly, this paper will discuss flexible yet practical methods for defining and capturing maturity, workflow, and agreement traceability within our system models, extensible ways to perform and track model audits, and ways to report and interact with this knowledge in the context of MBSE applied to support NASA’s Europa Project

Jackson, Maddalena↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

An Approach to Identifying Aspects of Positive Pilot Behavior within the Aviation Safety Reporting System

The National Airspace System (NAS) is constantly evolving as air traffic continues to ramp up to pre-pandemic numbers and projected to grow to unprecedented levels in the coming years. As well as increasing demand to the current system, emerging operations such as Unmanned Autonomous Systems are also expected to add to complexity in the airspace. To address these issues, the industry and government agencies supporting the NAS will need to rely upon additional automation and new technologies to address future operational requirements, while continuing to be a world-leading safe transportation system. As these new technologies are implemented, the system continues to rely on human pilots and controllers in the loop to monitor the system and intervene in situations the automation cannot handle. The goal of proactively addressing safety is of foremost concern to ensure passenger confidence. The industry has implemented various Safety Monitoring Systems to identify safety risks and proactively address them before they result in a serious incident or accident. One such program is the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). ASRS is a long-established system where pilots and controllers voluntarily and anonymously report safety incidents they experienced and observed during line operations by providing rich text narratives describing the events, the environment, and conditions leading to the safety event of concern. These narratives provide insight and context around events of interest and can be used to identify emerging problems. They can trigger investigations within Flight Operational Quality Assurance or Flight Data Monitoring programs. However, this process typically focuses on the adverse events and the unsafe aspects of the operations surrounding the reported or detected events. This perspective of investigating factors that went wrong around an adverse event is commonly referred to as Safety I. Alternatively, characterizing successful actions that operators perform every day under varying conditions that keep the system within safe operating bounds is a concept referred to as Safety II. The benefit of the Safety II view is that the scope is much larger than that of Safety I since a vast majority of the operations result in successful flights. Many of the successful techniques used to manage operational threats are not documented in standard operating procedures or taught during training. They are typically acquired over time by working with experienced pilots during line operations or in many cases after experiencing a problem for the first time and reacting to it in situ, drawing from years of experience to manage the threat. In an attempt to quantify these positive actions, we are proposing an approach to extracting key behaviors within ASRS reports that can support the Safety II concept. Our analysis assumes that ASRS reports contain some descriptions of corrective actions that operators performed to prevent a situation from leading to an accident. Leveraging recent advances in Natural Language Process modeling, we have developed an approach to extract positive sentiment from reports, embed these positive statements in a vector space where they can be numerically analyzed, and clustering these statements into similar contextual categories. From these contextualized categories we can attempt to summarized and distilled aspects of the positive behavior. The goal is to identify categories of behavior that describe consistent operator techniques that supports the Safety II concept. With this information, airlines may enable learning from these positive actions, or address procedures that need to be changed to avoid having pilots implement a workaround. These insights can provide a lens into what is “going right” in the operations that may otherwise not be known widely within the community. It is envisioned that this approach can be extended to other narrative programs such as Line Operation Safety Audit or Learning Improvement Team reports where similar observed behavior can be analyzed to extract positive actions and inform the overall operations.

NLP↗
DOE OSTI2025

Field Insights: Strengthening Digital Assurance Through On-Site Network Monitoring

The accelerating deployment of digital energy infrastructure, ranging from inverter-based resources (IBRs), battery energy storage systems (BESS), to advanced grid control platforms, has brought unprecedented visibility, flexibility, and efficiency to the electric grid. However, this digital transformation also introduces new cybersecurity challenges, particularly in the form of supply chain risks and operational blind spots at the grid edge. Over the past year, the Department of Energy’s Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), through its Rapid Risk Assessment initiative, along with the Grid Deployment Office (GDO), through its Technical Assistance for Digital Assurance (TADA) initiative, have supported a series of on-site network engagements led by Idaho National Laboratory (INL). These engagements, conducted in partnership with asset owners across the country, have focused on identifying real-world vulnerabilities and misconfigurations in operational environments, many of which are not detectable through remote assessments or traditional compliance audits. The goal of this report is to distill key findings and lessons learned during network hunt engagements from INL’s fiscal year (FY) 2024 - 2025. It is intended to help asset owners—regardless of their participation in the program—better understand the evolving threat landscape and adopt practical measures to secure their digital energy infrastructure.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS2004

The Office of Inspector General (OIG)

The NASA Office of Inspector General is the Federal Law Enforcement Agency at NASA which conducts criminal and regulatory investigations in which NASA is a victim. The OIG prevents and detects crime, fiaud, waste and abuse and assists NASA management in promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in its programs and operations. Investigations (OI) and the Office of Audits (OA). The investigations side deals with criminal Investigations, administrative investigations, and civil investigations. The Audits side deals with inspections and assessments as well as the Auditing of NASA Programs and Activities. Our mission at the OIG is to conduct and supervise independent and objective audits and investigations relating to agency programs and operations; to promote economy, effectiveness and efficiency within the agency; to prevent and detect crime, fraud, waste and abuse in agency programs and operations; to review and make recommendations regarding existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to agency programs and operations. We are also responsible for keeping the agency head and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems in agency programs and operations. deal with False Claims, False Statements, Conspiracy, Theft, Computer Crime, Mail Fraud, the Procurement Integrity Act, the Anti-Kickback Act, as well as noncompliance with NASA Management Instructions, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most of the casework that is dealt with in our office is generated through gum shoe work or cases that we generate on our own. These cases can come from Law Enforcement Referrals, GIDEP Reports, EPlMS (NASA Quality System), Defense Contract Audit Agency, Newspaper Articles, and Confidential Information. In many cases, confidentiality is the biggest factor to informants coming forward. We are able to maintain confidentiality because the 01 is independent of NASA Management and doesn t report to the Center Directors, therefore the informant s mangers and supervisors are unaware of the informants actions. The only time when an informant s confidentiality may be compromised is when it is needed in a Court of Law and is released through a Judicial Court Order. During my tenure here at the NASA OIG/OI at Glenn Research Center, I have been involved in many different tasks. They have ranged from updating Suspected Unapproved Parts case files to independently interviewing NASA employees to turn up general background information. The 01 has the duty of informing NASA aeronautical safety managers of potential Nonconforming products. My mission is to compile a database of Nonconformance reports for distribution. The background information that I turn up from my interviews is then used to determine NASA s susceptibility to acceptance of unapproved parts. The IG organization is divided up into two separate disciplines, the Office of 01 investigations primarily focus on violations of Federal laws. Some of these violations

Macisco, Christopher A.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Acceptable Knowledge Summary Report for REMOTE-HANDLED DEPLETED URANIUM INGOTS FROM MATERIALS AND FUELS COMPLEX

This Acceptable Knowledge (AK) Summary Report has been prepared for the Central Characterization Program (CCP) for remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste generated and managed by the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC), formerly Argonne National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) and part of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The waste described in this report, depleted uranium ingots (waste stream ID-MFC-DU-INGOT), was historically generated in Building 765, the Fuel Conditioning Facility (FCF), formerly, Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF)-South. This AK Summary Report, along with the referenced supporting documents, provides a defensible and auditable record of AK for the designated waste stream, depleted uranium ingots, produced from the FCF electrorefining process. The references and AK source documents used to prepare this report are listed in Sections 8.0 and 9.0 respectively. The source documents cited throughout this report are identified by alphanumeric designations corresponding to a unique Source Document Tracking Number (e.g., AKA01, C001, CCE01, DR001, M001, P001, and U001).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2002

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 2001 Accountability Report

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent Agency established to plan and manage the future of the Nation's civil aeronautics and space program. This Accountability Report covers Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 (October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001), with discussion of some subsequent events. The Report contains an overview addressing the Agency's critical programs and financial performance and includes highlights of performance organized by goals and objectives of the Enterprises and Crosscutting Processes. The Report also summarizes NASA's stewardship over budget and financial resources, including audited financial statements and footnotes. The financial statements reflect an overall position of offices and activities, including assets and liabilities, as well as results of operations, pursuant to requirements of Federal law (31 U.S.C. 3515(b)). The auditor's opinions on NASA's financial statements, reports on internal controls, and compliance with laws and regulations are included in this report.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2001

National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2001 Accountability Report

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an independent Agency established to plan and manage the future of the Nation's civil aeronautics and space program. This Accountability Report covers Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 (October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2001), with discussion of some subsequent events The Report contains an overview addressing the Agency's critical programs and financial performance and includes highlights of performance organized by goals and objectives of the Enterprises and Crosscutting Processes. The Report also summarizes NASA's stewardship over budget and financial resources, including audited financial statements and footnotes. The financial statements reflect an overall position of offices and activities, including assets and liabilities, as well as results of operations, pursuant to requirements of Federal law (31 U.S.C. 3515(b)). The auditor's opinions on NASA's financial statements, reports on internal controls, and compliance with laws and regulations are included in this Report.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2021

Net Zero Energy Model for Wastewater Treatment Plants

The primary objective of this study is to achieve net-zero energy (NZE) wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) by utilizing energy efficiency opportunities (EEO), combined heat and power (CHP) systems, and other renewable energy (RE) sources, e.g., solar, water, and wind powers. Herein, this study discusses an innovative energy solution for WWTPs in the United States, and one of the WWTPs with a flow capacity of 1.5 million gallons per day (MGD) was selected as a case study. An optimization tool, Hybrid Optimization of Multiple Energy Resources (HOMER) software, is used in this study to find the best energy system configuration to run the system. An energy audit for one WWTP was conducted in early 2020 and the report is used to do this study. The proposed EEOs were able to reduce WWTP energy consumption by about 11%. The excess anaerobic digester gas was utilized in a CHP system to cover about 42% of the facility’s consumption. Also, 3% of the utility energy consumption can be claimed by microturbines in the aeration tanks. Another two renewable energy systems, solar photovoltaic (PV) with 29% and water turbines with 15%, contribute to covering 100% of the WWTP energy consumption and achieving an NZE WWTP.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
NASA NTRS2018

Agency Agreements Process Champion Support Intern

This document will provide information on the 2018 Spring semester NIFS Intern who represented the Office of Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) as a Reimbursable Accountant at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). This intern supported the Agency Agreements Process Champions and Team Lead, Susan Kroskey, Sandy Massey and Mecca Murphy, with major initiatives to advance the KSC OCFO's vision of creating and innovating healthy financial management practices that maximize the value of resources entrusted to NASA. These initiatives include, but are not limited to: updating the Agency Guidance and NASA Procedural Guidance 9090.1 Agreements, implementing a new budget structure to be utilized across all centers, submitting a Call Request (CRQ) to enhance non-federal customer reporting, initiating a discussion to incorporate a 3-year funding program for NASA agreements, and undertaking the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit. In support of these initiatives, this intern identified technical methods to enhance and reduce the workload of financial processes for reimbursable and non-reimbursable agreements, prepared reports in support of accounting functions, and performed administrative work and miscellaneous technical tasks in support of the OCFO as requested. In conclusion of the internship, the intern will become knowledgeable on reimbursable accounting, reimbursable policy, types of reimbursable agreements, the agreements process, estimated pricing reports, and the roles and responsibilities of the Financial Accounting and Financial Services offices.

Process Champion↗